Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONS)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the hardship caused by the fall in the value of money in the last fifteen years, he will make representations to the Sudanese Government to increase the pensions of former British Members of the Sudan Civil Service to the same extent as has taken place under the United Kingdom Pension's Increase Act of 1959.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Her Majesty's Government have on a number of occasions represented to the Sudan Government that it would be equitable to grant an increase in the pensions of former British members of the Sudan Civil Service. The latest approach was on 9th June when Her Majesty's Ambassador in Khartoum communicated to the Sudan Government the text of the United Kingdom Pensions (Increase) Act of 1959 with illustrative examples. I understand that the Sudan Government are still considering the matter.

Mr. Tilney: In view of the fact that for many decades the Sudan was a condominium run by this country without the help of Egypt, and in view of the fact that 'we scoured some of the main universities to produce some of their best graduates for this service, does my right hon. and learned Friend adhere to the view he expressed in a letter of 12th March that Her Majesty's Government have no responsibilities as regards this fine service?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly could not agree that we have no responsibilities as regards that fine service. I would rather be reminded of the whole of my letter before I make further comment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEN-NATION DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what is the estimated cost of printing as a White Paper the verbatim records of the Committee of Ten Nations on Disarmament for the period 15th March to 29th April;
(2) whether he will publish as a White Paper the verbatim records of the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament which met in Geneva from 15th March to 29th April, 1960.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The cost to the Stationery Office of printing these records as a White Paper would be about £1,512. That sum would have to be increased if the records up to yesterday are also published. In the circumstances, however, I think it would be the wish of the House that the verbatim records of the whole conference to date should be published as a White Paper. I will arrange for this to be done as quickly as possible.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I express my gratitude to the Foreign Secretary for that Answer and, lest he or any hon. Member should think that this is somewhat inappropriate, may I remind him that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury informed me the other day that we spend £4,000 a week printing the records of this House? I think this expenditure, in view of the gravity of the issues, would be well justified.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress made at the Ten-Power Disarmament Conference.

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the breakdown of the Ten-Nation talks in Geneva on disarmament.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Ten-Nation Disarmament Conference.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House yesterday, we very much deplore the action of the Soviet and other Eastern delegations in walking out of the Geneva Conference and refusing to participate any longer in these discussions. This was particularly regrettable when, as the Soviet delegate knew, important new proposals were about to be presented. The House will remember that on 7th June the Soviet Government had presented new proposals completely different from the plan of September, 1959. These new proposals had to be discussed carefully in detail between the five Western Governments immediately concerned.
The new United States proposals were designed to come some way to meet some of the Soviet objections to the previous Western plan and to take account of the new Soviet plan. They had been communicated to the five Western Governments on 24th June. We welcomed them and had hoped that, after further consultations with our allies, they would have been tabled this week as joint Western proposals.
I repeat, Mr. Zorin had been told of the existence of these proposals. In the circumstances, owing to the precipitate action of the Soviet representative in breaking up the Conference, the United States representative tabled them on Monday as United States proposals.
We and our allies are, of course, considering how to get discussions going again in some form or another, and I hope before long to be able to make a statement to the House.

Mr. Healey: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he will consider asking for the convocation of an emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly in order to get the disarmament discussions started again, perhaps in a forum better suited in composition and procedure than the Ten-Nation Committee? Secondly, can he assure us that he will use the Government's utmost influence to prevent any acceleration in the arms race, and particularly that he will oppose any resumption of atomic tests by any Western country and any further distribution of atomic missiles?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the first part of that supplementary question, there are a number of possibilities—the Security Council, the possibility of an emergency session of the Assembly, and the possibility of the Disarmament Commission, which consists of the full membership of the United Nations. There is also the possibility of a resumption at Geneva. All these possibilities are being considered.
With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, on the matter of nuclear tests, we very much hope that what happened at Geneva on Monday is not going to be a precedent in regard to nuclear tests. I think there that we are far nearer agreement, and I very much hope that both sides will persevere in order to get the agreement which I think can be obtained.

Mr. A. Henderson: While the latest American proposals are not fundamentally much different from the proposals put forward on 7th June by the Soviet Government, may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the Government are not committed to the American proposals for on-site inspection of nuclear delivery systems, without any reduction in their numbers? Have not the Soviet Government constantly made it clear that they will never accept control without a measure of disarmament?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that in the new American proposals there is a considerable advance in the field of disarmament. For example, as regards force levels, the figure has come down to 2·1 million in the first stage and to 1·7 million in the second stage. In fact that is the same figure as in the second stage of the latest Soviet proposals. So I think there is a measure of disarmament which is now being reached in the first stage, which we welcome. I quite agree that it is improbable that full control would be accepted by the Soviet Government in advance of real disarmament, and what we all want to try to do is to get the two things going pari passu.

Mr. Warbey: While regretting the manner and timing of the Russian walkout, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Russians have not made a great advance by accepting in substance the proposals put forward by M. Moch on behalf of the French Government, which, I understand, have


been accepted in principle by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? The Americans then went away and came back with a plan which was really very little different from their old plan, if we can judge by a report in The Times, which substantially, in the first stage, still has inspection and control without any effective disarmament.

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad that the hon. Member asked that question about M. Moch's proposals, because M. Moch stated categorically that it was totally inexact to assert that the Soviet plan embodied the French ideas on means of delivery. I am glad to be able to make that perfectly clear. M. Moch could not have been firmer about it. In fact, they do not embody the French plan. The French proposals with regard to means of delivery go through certain stages—study, control, reduction and elimination. No one can say that the Russian plan goes through those stages, because within a year they propose to abolish and destroy everything, which I do not think is practical politics. I do not think anyone believes that it is practical politics to do that in one year.

Mr. Rankin: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman hope to reach any worth-while conclusions on disarmament if he excludes China from his exchanges and talks?

Mr. Lloyd: I thought I made it very clear in my speech in the debate on 30th May that I believe that before we get a realistic disarmament conference, China has got to come in. That is one respect, in which, I think, the American plan goes some way to meet that point of view.

Mr. Healey: Will the Foreign Secretary clarify one point in his statement? I was not quite clear about the proposals put forward by the United States Government on their own behalf on Monday. Have these proposals, which have appeared substantially in the Press, already been agreed by the British and French Governments as a common Western position, or is some negotiation still possible on this issue?

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad that the hon. Member asked that question. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a Question yesterday, and possibly there was some misunderstanding both about

the hon. Member's question, which dealt with some reply to the Soviet proposals, and also about this matter of agreement. What happened was that on Friday, 24th June, the American proposals were circulated to the four Western allies. I examined them on Sunday afternoon when I came back from Austria and authorised the Minister of State to say that we welcomed them and would support them, but that there was, of course, a need for discussion of the details and it might well be that there would be some alterations or improvements. There was also a meeting in Geneva the same day at which I think the proposals generally received a welcome from the four Western countries. They would then have been further examined on the Monday. No doubt the N.A.T.O. Council would have been consulted. We hoped that in the course of this week it would be possible to put forward an agreed Western plan. Unfortunately, the action of the Soviet Union on Monday morning made the whole of that process impossible, but I think that there will certainly be further discussion of the actual details.

Mr. Healey: The Prime Minister, then, was incorrect in saying yesterday that these were agreed Western proposals? May I take it that the Government and the other four Western Powers are not yet tied to every detail in them?

Mr. Lloyd: That is so. He asked me to make it clear that when he said that they were agreed, that was not correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish in HANSARD a statement showing what armaments and military equipment of various kinds have been exported to Israel, the United Arab Republic, Jordan, and Lebanon in the past two years; and what exports of these kinds are contemplated in the near future.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. It is not the practice to disclose information about arms supplies to foreign Governments.

Mr. Driberg: Could the Foreign Secretary at least say in a general way whether this traffic is continuing


unabated or whether there has been some lull, on each side, in recent months or years? Would it not be a sensible thing, short of the remoter possibility of general disarmament, to start with an agreement to limit arms supplies to these danger areas of the world?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in an Answer he gave last January, tried to set out the general considerations to which we adhere. I think I can say to the hon. Member that my feeling is that the arms traffic, as he calls it, has to some extent abated. I agree that it is very necessary for all concerned to exercise restraint in this kind of area.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the confused situation in Iraq, can the Foreign Secretary say whether we are still exporting arms to that country?

Mr. Lloyd: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the British representative at the disarmament talks to propose that the existing nuclear Powers should undertake not to release nuclear weapons to other nations.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have little to add to the Answer given on 27th June to the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson). If, as we still hope, disarmament discussions can be resumed, this subject is likely to come up then.

Mr. Allaun: Following the breakdown of the talks, will the Government make this proposal to the other nuclear Powers? In particular, does the Foreign Secretary approve of the recent statement by General Norstad that tactical nuclear weapons should be given to Norway?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think there is any question of giving nuclear warheads to any of the N.A.T.O. countries. We are, of course, against the spread of nuclear weapons in that sense.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the dangers of war or nuclear explosions arising from accidents, miscalculations, or muddles, if he will propose to the Governments of the Powers possessing

nuclear weapons a temporary international agreement to discontinue patrol flights of aeroplanes carrying nuclear weapons, pending the conclusion of a disarmament treaty.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. The dangers mentioned can only be dealt with effectively by an international agreement on general and comprehensive disarmament under effective control, such as we have been trying to secure at Geneva.

Mr. Swingler: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that the conduct by both sides of patrol flights by planes carrying nuclear weapons is itself a source of anxiety and tension? Would it not be a moderate step towards some relaxation of tension to try to get an international agreement to stop these flights?

Mr. Lloyd: The difficulty about it is that I do not think it would be possible to have any control of such an agreement and also it would leave the long-range missiles completely unaffected.

Mr. Paget: Does the Foreign Secretary really think that it would add to our safety to agree that all our aeroplanes should remain as sitting ducks on aerodromes?

Mr. Lloyd: As quite often happens, I agree with the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Would the Foreign Secretary consider letting the House have a study of the danger of accident with these new weapons? Does he not agree that Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, who made the first atomic bomb, said in Berlin two weeks ago that the new weapons developing were now adding chance to anger as a possible cause of war?

Mr. Lloyd: I should have to consider whether a study could or should be made, and whether it would be useful to disclose its result.

Mr. Swingler: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that if everybody's planes on both sides were "sitting ducks", they would all be in the same case and the world would be a lot safer?

Mr. Lloyd: But rockets come into it then.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Armed Forces (Alert)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date he was informed by the United States Government that the combat alert called for the eve of the summit meeting was a routine test; and what subsequent communications he has received on this matter from the United States Government.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in answer to Questions on 2nd June, this alert was a routine test of the efficiency of United States communications, and there was accordingly no need for consultation between the two Governments. As far as the second part of the Question is concerned, the answer is "None, Sir."

Mr. Swingler: Has not the Foreign Office examined the testimony on 2nd June of Mr. Thomas Gates, United States Defence Secretary, to the Senate Investigating Committee, and the report of that Committee, in which it was made clear that the Defence Secretary of the United States claimed that this was not a routine alert, but had been specially called on a certain political analysis by the United States Government?

Mr. Lloyd: I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to what the President of the United States said about this matter—that they were away from their normal command posts, and in the circumstances he agreed to a test of the continuous readiness of military communications.

Mr. Mellish: Will the Minister take it from a number of us on this side of the House that somes of us are very worried about the Americans being so jittery? Indeed, their jitters give us the jitters.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that in this case it was a case of jitters.

Mr. Reuther's Message, Nairobi

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will protest to the Government of the United States of America about the anti-British contents of Mr. Reuther's message at the official opening of Solidarity House, Nairobi, by the Governor of Kenya.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. Mr. Reuther is an independent trade union official. I have no reason to think that the United States Government would accept any responsibility for whatever views he expresses.

Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be better if Mr. Reuther confined his remarks on colonial matters to places of which he might have a special knowledge, such as Okinawa or Panama, or even some States in South America?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that Mr. Reuther's remarks were happy.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his reply will be welcomed by most reasonable people, because people in this country want to reserve the right to criticise the policies of the United States and also because Mr. Reuther's speech was full of very good common sense?

Mr. Lloyd: There was a fair number of very unfortunate remarks interspersed in it.

Mr. Allen Dulles (Visit to Foreign Office)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with Mr. Allen Dulles, head of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, during Mr. Dulles' official visit to the Foreign Office on 16th June last.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. In fact. I was in Holland on that day.

Mr. Lipton: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, according to reliable Press reports, Mr. Dulles spent an hour and a quarter at the Foreign Office with the permanent head of that Department? Were they talking about the latest "pop" records, or was an opportunity taken to let this distinguished visitor know what the British Government's attitude was to U2 flights or, conversely, did we get any advice from Mr. Dulles on how best to coordinate modern policy and intelligence activities.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course Mr. Dulles, in the course of his visit, paid a call at the Foreign Office and saw the Permanent


Under-Secretary. I should have been very surprised if he had not. Of course, they had a discussion, but I have no intention of revealing to the hon. Gentleman confidential information of that sort. If one did reveal what took place in those discussions they would obviously become valueless.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Did Her Majesty's Government receive an assurance such as that given by the American Government to Pakistan and Norway that bases in Britain will not be used for U2 flights?

Mr. Lloyd: That really is a very different question from that on the Order Paper—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Lloyd: I shall certainly not answer unless the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS PRODUCTION

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will invite the nations whose representatives were to have joined him in the abortive summit meeting to join him in an investigation into the respective manufacturers who profit by war and by preparations for war, with a view to those nations joining in international control of such manufacturers.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. The scale and nature of arms production is controlled not by the manufacturers but by orders from Governments. The first essential is therefore to obtain an international disarmament agreement between Governments, as we have been trying to do.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not a fact that the efforts of the Government, in conjunction with other Governments, up to the present to ascertain and control the causes of war have failed? Does the Minister agree that the suggestion contained in my Question strikes at one of the root causes of war, and offers a means of controlling and preventing future wars? Will he, therefore, reconsider his Answer and adopt the suggestion?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that is an old-fashioned idea. I think it is nowadays the Governments, not the arms manufacturers.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (AIR SURVEILLANCE)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that a United Nations air surveillance should be created, to detect preparations for attack, to be operated in the territories of all nations.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government will give serious consideration to any practicable proposals that may be put forward to reduce the danger of surprise attack. We have consistently supported the concept of "open skies" and will continue to do so.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that this proposal would be more likely to receive the acceptance of the Soviet Government if it were accompanied by a substantial measure of disarmament?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINESE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC (MR. CHOU EN-LAI)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official arrangements have been made for a visit to this country by the Chinese Premier, Mr. Chou En-Lai.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider such a visit, in view of the fact, as I am sure he will agree, that relations with China are very friendly, and, in these circumstances, it is usual for Heads of States to visit one another from time to time? Does he not feel that it would be rather embarrassing if we should leave the initiative to Field Marshal Lord Montgomery?

Mr. Lloyd: I think, to be quite frank with the House, that this visit would need a good deal of preparation, but, in any case, I did not think that this kind of personal diplomacy was quite so much in favour at the moment.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, arising out of his visit to China, has reported that Mr. Chou En-Lai is a very fine man, of peaceful disposition, would it not be wise to invite him here?

Mr. Lloyd: Field Marshal Lord Montgomery's views will, of course, be taken in to consideration and given due weight.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH FOREIGN MINISTER (VISIT)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) why he has invited the Foreign Minister of Spain to the United Kingdom; and
(2) what proposals he has for the admission of Spain to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the impending visit of the Spanish Foreign Minister, and the matters to be discussed.

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the business to be discussed with the Foreign Minister of Spanish Affairs; and whether the possibility of Spain entering into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will be a matter for discussion.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements he has made for the visit of the Spanish Foreign Minister to Great Britain; what is the purpose of this visit; and what representations and protests he has received in this connection.

Mr. Mendelson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent proposals have been received, and from which Governments, to admit Spain to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The purpose of the Spanish Foreign Minister's visit and my reason for inviting him is to improve our relations with Spain. I shall discuss with him the international situation but it will not be the occasion for formal negotiations. The question of Spanish membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has not arisen.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the overwhelming mass of the British people of all political parties—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—despite the shouts from the benches behind him, are very unhappy indeed about this visit and its implications? Will he take this opportunity of denying that there is any prospect of any defence arrangements being entered into between this country and Spain, and any question of Spain being admitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

Mr. Lloyd: I ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite to think very carefully about this matter. I do not think that it is wise to make internal systems or policies the test according to which we try to improve relations with a country. Secondly, we have had relations with the Spanish people; sometimes we have been enemies and sometimes we have been friends. We have many common interests. For instance, 350,000 British people went to Spain for their holidays last year. It seems quite reasonable to try to improve relations with that country. Thirdly, Señor Castiella will be coming as the guest of this country.

Mr. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Señor Castiella is notorious for his anti-British views, that he was decorated by Hitler personally and that in 1951 his record was so bad that the Government of that day refused to accept him in this country as an ambassador? If he is to receive Señor Castiella, will he discuss with him the ferocious and barbarous military trials which continue to take place inside Spain and which are consistently reported in The Times, the last report being as recent as 22nd June?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot intervene in what are internal Spanish matters. I met Señor Castiella when he came to this country last year. I did not find him anti-British. The incidents to which the hon. Member has referred happened many years ago. He is now Foreign Minister of Spain, and I intend to do the best I can to improve our relations with his country.

Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that what the mass of the British people really wonder about are why some hon. Members opposite


strain at the Spanish gnat while they are perfectly willing to swallow the Russian and Chinese camels whole?

Mr. Lloyd: Mention has been made of the deep feeling about this matter. I have had one letter of protest against the visit—on the ground that Señor Castiella represents a Roman Catholic country.

Mr. R. Edwards: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Mr. Herter, giving evidence before the United States Foreign Affairs Committee, stated that it was his opinion that Spain should be in N.A.T.O.? Is he further aware that the Foreign Secretary of Spain made a speech at Georgetown University in March this year in which he boasted of his military adventures on behalf of Hitler? Is he aware that in his written speech it is stated that he considered that Spain was still technically at war with the Soviet Union? Will the Foreign Secretary also bear in mind that the American trade union movement has placed on record its opposition to Mr. Herter's statement, and that this is the view of the whole trade union movement of the Western world? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] If the Government want to weaken N.A.T.O., the best way of so doing is to have any military alliance with Spain.

Mr. Lloyd: I said quite clearly in my original Answer that the question of Spain joining N.A.T.O. has not arisen and that Señor Castiella is not coming here for formal negotiations. The hon. Member seems to want me to take responsibility for the statements of a number of people for whom I am not responsible. I repeat that whatever is thought of the social system and of the interial policies of another country, that is not a reason why one should not seek to improve relations with it.

Mr. Mendelson: Is the Foreign Secretary further aware that at a meeting at Mérida, on the Spanish-Portuguese frontier, between Premier Salazar and General Franco on 21st and 22nd June, decisions were made to use the tragic atmosphere after the collapse of the Summit meeting for pushing the entry of Spain into N.A.T.O. and that Portugal and Spain intend to put these proposals to the British Government quite soon and hope to exert pressure for their acceptance? Will he take this opportunity to

give the House an assurance that the British Government will resist any such pressure and any such proposals? Will he further affirm that—[Interruption.]—Spain is not to be admitted to an alliance of countries which are supposed to be dedicated to the defence of democracy and political freedom?

Mr. Speaker: It is perhaps convenient at this point that I should remind the House that questions giving information are out of order. Some questions nowadays seem to give a lot of information.

Mr. Lloyd: I repeat my original Answer about this visit. As for, the future, I told the House in March that I certainly would not give any undertaking of that sort. We shall have to judge any such proposals in the conditions when they are made.

Mr. Healey: Has the Foreign Secretary read the text of the North Atlantic Treaty? If he has, is he aware that the Preamble specifically excludes Spain from qualification for membership? If the aim of the visit is to improve understanding between the two countries, will he inform the Spanish Foreign Minister that any Spanish application will be opposed by the British Government, not only on the ground that it is inconsistent with the Treaty, but also because it is profoundly repugnant to the overwhelming majority of the British people?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe that the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is correct. On the former part, in any examination of a proposal of this sort, if and when it should be made, the terms of the Treaty would have to be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Destroyers and Supply Ships

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the discussions now taking place with a view to permitting West Germany to build destroyers up to 5,000 tons and supply ships up to 6,000 tons.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am afraid I cannot make any statement as yet; the matter is under consideration and no decision has yet been taken.

Mr. Allaun: First, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this was under discussion by the W.E.U. on 16th June? Secondly, is he aware that the two principal West German newspapers reported on 9th and 10th June that their Defence Minister, Herr Strauss, was then in America pressing for the bigger destroyers capable of carrying nuclear rockets?

Mr. Lloyd: The matter was not under discussion at the W.E.U. Council meeting. It has not reached the W.E.U. Council. Hon. Members must remember that the Treaty was made six years ago and there have been certain technical developments since then, for example in the sort of anti-aircraft defence which a vessel must have. That is a factor to be taken into account in considering its size.

West Berlin (Military Service)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protests he has received regarding the action of the West German Government in calling up men resident in West Berlin for military service: what replies he has sent; and what action Her Majesty's Government are taking in this matter under the Four-Power Agreement regarding the status of Berlin.

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the text of the official communication submitted to Her Majesty's Ambassadors in Warsaw and Prague regarding the military training of citizens of West Berlin contrary to the four-power agreements: and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On 6th June, Her Majesty's Embassy in Warsaw received a Note from the Polish Government enclosing a Note from the so-called German Democratic Republic. The text of a similar Note to the United States Government was made public at a Press Conference in East Berlin on 10th June. Naturally, Her Majesty's Government can take no cognisance of the East German Note, and no reply will be sent. As there is, in fact, no recruiting, no enlistment, no conscription for the Federal German Armed Forces in West Berlin, Her Majesty's Government see no need for any action in this matter.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that that statement is in direct conflict with the information furnished by the German Democratic Republic? Although I understand that Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to recognise the G.D.R., is that any reason at all for allowing any illegality to take place in West Berlin? Will he make further inquiries to ascertain whether, in fact, there is any truth in the allegations?

Mr. Lloyd: I made the Answer that I have just given after making inquiries in West Berlin through our sources there. If the right hon. Gentleman has ally information in contradiction of what I have said, I will, of course, examine it.

Mr. Kershaw: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any information about the call-up, conscription and equipment of Armed Forces in the Eastern area of Berlin or in East German territory?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like notice of that supplementary question.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the difficulty that my information derives—I admit it quite frankly—from the G.D.R.? Therefore, is there any use in sending that information to the Foreign Secretary, as he refuses to recognise anything coming from the G.D.R.? What am I to do?

Mr. Lloyd: We certainly refuse to recognise the G.D.R., but in such matters as this we make investigations. In the light of this Note, we made investigations through our posts in West Berlin, and it is in regard to those investigations that I gave the right hon. Gentleman the Answer I did.

Oral Answers to Questions — EARTHQUAKES, CHILE (AID)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement about the help given by this country to Chile since the recent disasters in that country.

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total sum so far contributed by Her Majesty's Government towards relieving the distress caused by the recent Chilean earthquake; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make a further contribution now that the needs of those affected have become apparent.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As I informed the House on 26th May, Her Majesty's Government gave an immediate grant of £10,000 to help with emergency relief. We were also able to arrange for a Royal Air Force Britannia, which was then in Argentina, to fly emergency supplies to Santiago. The British Council has contributed towards the cost of rebuilding a school. In addition, firms in this country and the general public have responded generously to appeals from private organisations. I understand that contributions to a fund opened by the Anglo-Chilean Society have now reached over £37,500 in cash and £24,500 in kind. The British Red Cross has so far sent over £18,000 to Chile. The total contribution from this country, therefore, so far amounts to over £90,000.
The Chilean Government have informed us that the need now is for help with the cost of reconstruction by means of loans. We are urgently consulting other European Governments to see whether a joint project for assistance of this kind can be concerted with them.

Mr. Wall: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether last week's earthquake caused any particular damage and will result in requests for further aid?

Mr. Lloyd: The information at my disposal is that it did not, but I will confirm that.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In view of the recurrence of disasters of this kind all over the world, will the Foreign Secretary again consider a plan which was mooted before the war for the creation of an international united nations scheme for dealing with such events?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly would like to examine the plan which was mooted before the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA (MUTUAL AID SCHEME)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now take the initiative in proposing that the Governments of the United Kingdom, France, Western Germany and the United States of America should organise a mutual aid scheme for the continent of Africa comparable to the Marshall Plan of 1947.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I sympathise very much with the purposes which the hon. Member has in mind. I doubt, however, whether a mutual aid scheme on the lines of the Marshall Plan is what is wanted. For one reason, the present position in Africa, where the economy needs developing, not restoring, is hardly comparable to that of Europe in 1947. But we are continually reviewing ways of helping Africa. In our support of the International Development Association we had Africa very much in mind and at present we are studying the proposal for co-operative action within the Commonwealth, which was made at the recent meeting in London of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the time for taking some very important initiatives may be limited? While appreciating the difficulties of the United States in an election year, may I ask if there is any reason why the British Government should not take the initiative with the French and German Governments to initiate discussions parallel to the Commonwealth discussions to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred?

Mr. Lloyd: No. We are in touch with both those Governments on this matter, but the difficulty raised is not quite so much getting another organisation. It is getting resources on a sufficient scale. At present, quite apart from private capital, we are contributing about £35 million a year in one way and another. It is a question of where the resources are to come from. European Governments as well as the United States Government are well aware of the need, and a variety of methods are being studied.

Mr. K. Lewis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that, while Her Majesty's Government are giving independence to so many countries in Africa and are apparently ready to meet this request for aid, there is some danger that his colleagues may agree in the next few months to take away independence from the County of Rutland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Foreign Office is responsible for some rather remote places, but I have not yet got Rutland into the responsibility of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. K. Lewis: On a point of order. I was just going on to ask if I could have mutual aid from the Foreign Secretary when the time comes to give it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHRAIN (DETAINEES, ST. HELENA)

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now release Mr. Abdul Rahman al Baker and four other Bahraini citizens from detention in St. Helena.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now terminate the detention in St. Helena of Abdul Rahman al Baker and two other Bahraini citizens who were sentenced on 23rd December, 1956, to 14 years' imprisonment by the Ruler's Court of Bahrain.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The legality of the removal of these prisoners to St. Helena and their detention there has been upheld by a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Now that this point has been established I am suggesting to all concerned that they should look again at this case.

Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his reply will give some satisfaction to this side of the House? Is he further aware that the circumstances in which these men were tried and convicted were completely inconsistent with the principles which govern British justice and that to intervene in any way in suppressing the political enemies of a foreign ruler is completely inconsistent with the general policy of disengagement, which I understand it is the Foreign Secretary's aim to follow in Middle East affairs?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but in all the circumstances, if he will rest content with the latter part of my Answer, I will see what can be done.

Mr. Warbey: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his attitude in this matter, may I ask him to consider the possibility of appealing for clemency for these men, releasing them, and enabling them to seek political asylum, either here or wherever they may be able to find it?

Mr. Lloyd: Today, I must content myself with the last sentence of my Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what changes are proposed in the principles governing membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir.

Mr. Jeger: May we take it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Answer that there will be no modification of the six basic freedoms on which N.A.T.O. was founded—freedom of the Press; freedom of speech and assembly; free elections; freedom of movement; freedom of worship, and the right to strike and the right to work? Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that none of these applies in Spain? Will he give a guarantee to the House that he will not support any alteration of N.A.T.O. which would permit the entry of Spain?

Mr. Lloyd: I will not express an opinion on part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. He asked me what changes are proposed in the principles. My answer is that none is proposed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION (COUNCIL MEETING)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the meeting of the South-East Asian Treaty Powers.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The annual Council Meeting of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation was held at Washington from 31st May to 2nd June. Members exchanged views on international developments affecting the Treaty area, and took stock of the work being done by the military and civil sides of the Organisation. The Council issued a communiqué, a copy of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the admission of China to the United


Nations was discussed at this S.E.A.T.O. meeting? Is he aware that it is essential to the correcting of the Western posture in Asia to regularise the situation about China? Can he say whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to support the admission of China at the forthcoming General Assembly of the United Nations? Can he say whether, up to now, it is American obtuseness or the British Government's streak of cowardice that has prevented this going further?

Mr. Lloyd: There was a discussion in the Council about the position of China, and I have nothing to add today to what I have repeatedly said about our position on that subject.

Following is the communiqué:
The S.E.A.T.O. Council held its Sixth Meeting in Washington, D.C., from 31st May to 2nd June, 1960, under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of State of the United States, the Honourable Christian A. Herter. The inaugural address was delivered by the Vice-President of the United States, the Honourable Richard M. Nixon.

Tribute to John Foster Dulles
The Council Members joined in paying tribute to the memory of the late John Foster Dulles, former Secretary of State of the United States and one of
S.E.A.T.O.'s principal architects.

General Observations
The Council meeting was held at a time when the international policies of the Communist countries and their future relations with the rest of the world were questions foremost in the minds of governments and peoples. Only a few days earlier the Summit Conference in Paris, which many had hoped would result in at least some limited agreement from which further reductions in world tensions might be developed, had been prevented from meeting by Premier Khrushchev. The Council, therefore, did not meet in that improved international climate which had been hoped for. Moreover, the Council noted that the Communist Chinese, who had not concealed their hostility to a Summit Conference, continued their uncompromising attitude.
In these circumstances the overall review of matters affecting the Treaty Area, which has always been an important item of the Council's agenda, took on special significance. In their frank exchange of views on this subject, the Council Members gave particular attention to the intensification during the past year of Communist subversion, insurgency and terrorism in several countries in the Treaty Area, as well as to the potential threat of armed aggression.
The Council availed itself of this timely opportunity to re-emphasise the firm unity of purpose of the member countries of S.E.A.T.O.

and their determination to maintain and develop, both individually and collectively, their capacity to meet all forms of Communist threat to the peace and security of the Treaty Area. At the same time it re-affirmed the faith of its members in the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and their desire to settle all international disputes by peaceful means.
The Council recognised that the Communist challenge posed not only a potential military threat to the independence of countries in the Treaty Area but also an immediate and direct threat to their cultures and ways of life. The members of the Council therefore restated their firm belief that, while military preparedness to meet armed aggression is an essential element in the work of the Treaty Organisation, a true and complete defence against aggression in its broadest sense must be found in the minds and spirits of men. For this reason a significant part of the effort of the Treaty members has been, and is being, directed towards mutual support in the economic, educational and cultural fields. This effort has the positive objectives of strengthening the sense of community throughout the Treaty Area and of developing conditions in which its people will enjoy their freedom to the fullest extent and will therefore hold to it the more resolutely.
The Council also emphasised the importance which Treaty members placed on maintaining and developing good relations with other countries of the area which although not members of the Organisation, had the same interest in the preservation of their independence.

Counter-subversion
The Council noted that further improvements have been made during the year in the arrangements for thorough and up-to-date joint study of subversion and insurgency, which are at present the preferred Communist tactics in the Treaty Area, and for exchanging views on the most effective methods of countering these activities. In this connection special note was taken of the usefulness of the Second Counter-Subversion Seminar held in Lahore in February and of the continuing work of the Committee of Security Experts.

Military Defence
The Council expressed satisfaction with the progress reported by the Military Advisers. Their work on planning and military exercises constitutes a reassurance that S.E.A.T.O. will be able successfully to resist aggression. The Council commended the efforts of the officers and men who participated in the exercises of the past year.
The Council placed on record its appreciation of the outstanding services rendered the Organisation by Brigadier L. W. Thornton, C.B.E., of New Zealand, who is completing his tour of duty as Chief, S.E.A.T.O. Military Planning Office, and welcomed his successor, Major General J. G. N. Wilton, C.B.E., D.S.O., of Australia, and Commodore S. M. Ahsan, S.Q.A., D.S.C., of Pakistan, the newly-appointed Deputy-Chief, Military Planning Office.

Economic Co-operation
In the field of economic co-operation there has been substantial progress reflected in such projects as:
The S.E.A.T.O. Graduate School of Engineering in Bangkok, which is expected to provide much needed talent essential to the economic development of South-East Asia;
The S.E.A.T.O. skilled labour projects in the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan, which are developing essential skills in short supply in the Treaty Area;
The area-wide S.E.A.T.O. meteorological communications project, which has moved forward as a result of a survey team visit to Pakistan. Thailand and the Philippines. This project would bring about improved radio communications, greater safety for air travel, and a reduction of typhoon damage and crop and property losses by providing advance warning of weather conditions.
The Treaty Area being heavily dependent on a few valuable staple crops, the Council approved a United States proposal to study the possibility of establishing an Institute of Tropical and Sub-Tropical Agriculture, which would seek means of preventing diseases that threaten those crops, and of developing greater agricultural diversification.
It was also agreed that the S.E.A.T.O. Cholera Research project in Thailand be converted to a S.E.A.T.O. Medical Research Laboratory which would contribute to the eradication, not only of cholera but also of other diseases. 
The Council agreed that the Committee of Economic Experts should be entirely free to discuss on a technical and advisory basis relevant economic problems of member countries, bearing in mind the established functions of other international agencies. Decisions on such matters will be left to the Council Representatives or to Member Governments.

Cultural Activity
During the past year S.E.A.T.O. awarded a large number of Research Fellowships, Professorships, Post-graduate and Undergraduate Scholarships, and Travelling Lectureships. In view of the effectiveness of this programme in bringing about a greater understanding among people of the S.E.A.T.O. nations, the Council decided to continue these activities during the coming year. It looked forward with expectation to the Conference of Heads of Universities, scheduled to be held early next year, to be attended by eminent educators from both S.E.A.T.O. and other Asian countries.

Secretary-General
Appreciative references were made to the outstanding services of the Secretary-General His Excellency Mr. Pote Sarasin, and it was decided to ask him to continue in office until the conclusion of the 1963 Conference. The Secretary-General accepted.

Expression of Gratitude
The Council expressed its gratitude to the Government of the United States for its hospitality and the excellent arrangements made

for the Conference. The Meeting closed with a warm vote of thanks to the Chairman, the Honourable Christian A. Herter.

Next Meeting

The Council accepted with pleasure the invitation of the Government of Thailand to hold its next meeting in Bangkok in March. 1961.

Leaders of National Delegations

The leaders of the national delegations to the Council Meeting were:
The Right Honourable Robert Gordon Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia.
Mr. Maurice Couve de Murville, Minister of Foreign Affairs of France.
The Right Honourable Walter Nash, Prime Minister of New Zealand.
Mr. Manzur Qadir, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations of Pakistan.
The Honourable Felixberto M. Serrano, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines.
Mr. Thanat Khoman, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand.
The Right Honourable Selwyn Lloyd, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom.
The Honourable Christian A. Herter, Secretary of State of the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINESE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC AND NATIONALIST CHINA

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America regarding action by either party in the event of a conflict between the Chinese Republic and the Government of Nationalist China.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government for action in the event referred to in the Question.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that Answer imply that in the event of any conflict arising out of a dispute between Nationalist China and the Chinese People's Republic in which the United States in involved, we take no action whatever?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman asked what arrangements had been made. The position is that no arrangements have been made, and we have no obligation or commitment of any kind to take military action for the defence of Quemoy, Matsu or Formosa.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the reference, in paragraph 66 of the Report by the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Vietnam, to the lacuna created in the machinery for the implementation of the Geneva Agreement; and what action he proposes as a result of this Report.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. This complicated question was referred to in paragraphs 7 and 43 of the Ninth Interim Report of the International Commission in Vietnam and communications were subsequently exchanged between the co-Chairmen. I am arranging for copies of these communications to be placed in the Library of the House. I do not propose to initiate any further action as a result of paragraph 66 of the Tenth Interim Report, to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Davies: Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that for many years he has received copies of these Interim Reports? Within the last month, he has had the Tenth Interim Report from the International Commission for supervision and control. None of this machinery can be implemented unless some action is taken about this joint Commission. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made any effort, since the French High Command left, to replace that Command, and to insist that the Commission can carry on its job in South Vietnam, as was implied in paragraphs 30 and 32 of the Geneva Agreement of 1954? Otherwise, the Treaty means nothing.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that I can go with the hon. Gentleman as far as to say that it would probably have been preferable if, in 1956, this body had not fallen into disuse, but I do not think that, at the present time, it is practicable to revive it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Sheds, West India Docks (Diesel Fumes)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the inconvenience and possible danger to health caused by diesel fumes from trucks used

in sheds at the West India Docks; to what extent the experimental use of filters has proved successful; if he has now completed his inquiries into the bearing of the Factories Act on this problem; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): Inquiries and tests undertaken by Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate do not indicate the presence of a hazard to health which would justify making regulations under the Factories Acts. The Inspectorate will keep in touch with the Port of London Authority and the union representatives on practical methods of reducing such unpleasant conditions as arise from time to time. Experimental work is continuing on the filters and on other modifications to the exhaust system.

Mr. Driberg: Is the Minister aware that, while it is probably true that these fumes are unpleasant rather than dangerous for most of those who work part-time in these sheds, for those who are indoors all day, such as tally clerks, there may be a real danger to health, since these diesel fumes hang about low and the ventilation is not really enough to get rid of them?

Mr. Thomas: Chemical tests were made in the West India Docks, and they confirmed the Inspectorate's view that, as far as existing medical knowledge goes, there is no hazard to health in these sheds.

Ship-Repair Workers, South Wales

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Labour what percentage of ship-repair workers in South Wales has been out of work for more than four weeks and eight weeks, respectively; and how this compares with the rest of Great Britain.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): I regret that figures of duration of unemployment are not available for separate industries.

Mr. Callaghan: Then would the Minister accept it from me that, according to the figures that can be got, unemployment in the South Wales ship-repair yards is much higher than it is in the rest


of the country; and that because of the irregular nature and the persistent nature of this unemployment that has now been going on for at least two years, many families are suffering hardship and growing poverty? Can I find some Minister who will accept responsibility for the situation, because the work is not coming to South Wales?

Mr. Heath: I would not be able to accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question without the necessary figures to enable me to make a check for other parts of the country and, as I have said, those figures are not available. But I agree that, because of the position of shipping, the figures for unemployment in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industrial areas are quite high. It is difficult to make accurate comparisons month by month, because the figures fluctuate quite considerably overall dependent upon the particular day on which the count is taken.

Mr. Lee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is not possible to produce figures? We get an agglomeration of figures on the basis of eight weeks and so on which, surely, must be built up from the knowledge obtained of the type of things about which my hon. Friend is asking. Why is it not possible to produce the figures?

Mr. Heath: It is not possible to produce the figures because, up to the moment, we have got these figures for all exchanges as a whole, and in the past we have not kept them for particular industries. The Ministry of Labour does keep a very large number of statistics, and we are continually altering them to meet special needs, but it would entail a great deal of work to keep figures of particular industries at particular exchanges.

Mr. Callaghan: If I asked about Cardiff only, would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give a comparison? Although I do not want to rely on comparative figures it is important, because there is a substantial feeling in South Wales that there is more unemployment in the ship-repairing industry there than in other parts of the country. We do not want to live on other people's miseries, but I ask the Minister to bear in mind that there is considerable and

growing hardship among shipbuilding workers and their families.

Mr. Heath: I quite appreciate the latter point, and we will look at the Cardiff position to see if it is possible to produce figures but, even then, to produce comparisons with other parts of the country would be difficult. The other solution to the difficulty in the shipbuilding industry is to find employment in other work, and there are expected to accrue in South Wales over 20,000 jobs within travel-to-work distance of the port area.

National Service (Mr. W. P. J. King)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Labour why the National Service Medical Board twice graded William Patrick Joseph King, of Banbury, as fit for service; whether his Department's principal medical advisers agreed that he was fit for service; and why he was discharged from the Royal Air Force the day after enlistment.

Mr. Heath: On both occasions the National Service medical board considered Mr. King to be above the minimum standard of fitness required for service with the Armed Forces and its conclusions were endorsed by my Chief Medical Adviser. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by the Under-Secretary of State for Air on 26th May.

Mr. Marten: As the reply given by the Air Ministry was that this man was unfit, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this sort of thing is rather a waste of time and of money? Would the Minister look into this sort of procedure to see whether this situation can be avoided, where there is any doubt about a man's fitness for service, by arranging for the man to be examined by the Service concerned before he is called up?

Mr. Heath: I am naturaly most anxious to avoid any cases of this kind. I think the House will agree that, considering the number of National Service men who have passed through medical boards, the number of instances of this kind is comparatively small.
The standards by which these men are judged were agreed between the medical


adviser to the Ministry of Labour and the medical advisers to the Services in 1950 and they have operated satisfactorily during the last ten years. In fact, what the Under-Secretary of State for Air said was that this gentleman was unlikely to be suitable for Air Force service. He did not say that he was medically unfit.

House of Commons (Staff)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Labour on what date he drew the attention of the Commissioners set up under the House of Commons (Offices) Act, 1812, to the fact that the staff of the House does not at present enjoy the rights of trade union negotiation and joint consultation; and what reply he has received.

Mr. Heath: On 14th April I informed Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Commissioners, that I had received from one organisation representations that arrangements should be made for negotiation and joint consultation. I understand that these representations, which are matters for Mr. Speaker and the Commissioners, are now being considered.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week the Prime Minister told us that he was advised that questions of trade union representation for the staff of this House—that is to say, on pay as distinct from conditions of work—were matters for the Commissioners as a whole? Can he tell us whether the Commissioners have met to consider this matter and, if not, may I ask what on earth are they in existence for?

Mr. Heath: You, Mr. Speaker, made a statement to the House when the Prime Minister had answered a supplementary question, saying that these matters were under consideration, and at the moment I think I should leave the matter there.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot shelter behind anybody else's responsibilities. I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion, but nothing is slumbering.

Mr. C. Pannell: In order that we may put you in the most favourable light, if I may say so with respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that you have received representations from people interested in this matter as a principle, and that, as far as I understood it, before you take any irrevocable steps—by that I mean

complete refusal—if necessary you will receive representations again? In effect, it will be only at that time that the Minister of Labour might come into the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was not here when I was induced to say something last time—

Mr. Pannell: I read it.

Mr. Speaker: —but in substance he is repeating what I said.

School-Leaving Dates

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has had consultations with employers' organisations with a view to arranging not more than two school-leaving dates as recommended by the Crowther Committee.

Mr. P. Thomas: At the request of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, we shall be seeking the views of both sides of industry at a meeting of the Joint Consultative Committee of the National Joint Advisory Council next week.

Mr. Boyden: Could the Minister give an assurance that when this meeting takes place he will do all he can to assist the Committee in making provision for two school-leaving dates, such as modifying arrangements within his own Youth Employment Service? Obviously there could be great congestion. Would he give an assurance that every assistance will be given to industry to help in this transition?

Mr. Thomas: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman this assurance, that we in our Department will give every assistance to this Committee to go into this extremely important matter very thoroughly.

School Leavers, Port Talbot and Glyncorrwg

Mr. Morris: asked the Minister of of Labour what was the number of young persons who left school at Easter in the Port Talbot and Glyncorrwg area who have not yet been placed in employment; and to what extent children, who would normally be leaving, are staying at school for lack of suitable employment.

Mr. P. Thomas: On 13th June there were 15 out of a total of 183. Young people often think of leaving school but stay on for various reasons, and I cannot say how many went back because no job was available.

Mr. Morris: Having regard to the forecast substantial increase of school leavers in the next few years, will the hon. Gentleman consult with the President of the Board of Trade about the provision of suitable factories in the area and, in particular, of apprenticeships which are now like gold in this area?

Mr. Thomas: The overall employment situation in the area is extremely satisfactory. I believe it is 1·1 per cent. of the insured population. There is undoubtedly a difficulty in finding employment quickly for school leavers, but I do not expect that there will be any difficulty eventually in giving employment to all the school leavers in the area.
As to the question of additional factories, I believe there is unoccupied factory space at Glyncorrwg, and the Board of Trade has certainly tried to let this factory to a number of industrialists but, unfortunately, so far without success.

Mr. Lee: Following my hon. Friend's supplementary question, would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that we are now going into the beginning of the high rise in the bulge? Would he further agree that when we consider the apportionment of school leavers who are taking jobs but require apprenticeship for scientific training, the position is very unsatisfactory indeed? Unless we increase the numbers who go into such jobs we may see a rise in the number of boys and girls going into blind-alley occupations.

Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree that we need a substantial improvement in the intake of people into trained skills.

Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing Industry (Safety Regulations)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a further statement regarding new safety regulations in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry.

Mr. P. Thomas: A statutory draft of the regulations was published in February, 1960. An objection to certain

of the provisions in the draft regulations was subsequently lodged by one of the organisations principally concerned. My officers have since been trying to resolve the disputed issue in consultation with the interested organisations, and a further meeting is being held this week.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both sides of the industry want these new regulations? Indeed, they have been considered since my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) was Minister of Labour. Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to see that we get these regulations as soon as possible?

Mr. Thomas: There is only one issue and that is the issue relating to the problem of lighting. As I told the House, there is to be a meeting this week on the matter, and if agreement can be reached, a revised statutory draft of the regulations will be published and will be open for the lodging of objections for the minimum period of three weeks. It is not expected that further objections would then be made.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that, whatever the result of this meeting, the safety regulations will apply to Scotland? They do, in fact, apply to Scotland, but will he make sure that' there will be no alteration in the situation?

Mr. Thomas: I was not certain what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. Was he asking whether the regulations will apply to Scotland?

Mr. Hughes: The Minister has just referred to certain conversations which may result in an alteration of these safety regulations. The safety regulations at present do apply to Scotland. Will he ensure that, whatever alterations are made as a result of these talks, the alterations will not have the effect of making the regulations apply no longer to Scotland? Will they continue to apply to Scotland?

Mr. Thomas: Yes.

Disabled Persons, Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of disabled persons registered on the disabled persons' register in Sunderland and how many persons so registered are at present unemployed.

Mr. P. Thomas: Three thousand one hundred and fifty-three, of whom 515 were unemployed on 16th May.

Mr. Willey: Does the Minister appreciate that we are very concerned about the very high level of unemployment among disabled persons? It is very distressing. We recognise the work done in the Remploy factories, but will his Department consider extending this, in view of the desperate need?

Mr. Thomas: I well appreciate the problem. I am happy to find that plans for increasing the capacity of the Remploy factory are at present being considered by Remploy.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Steele: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday there was some criticism because not all the Prime Minister's Questions were reached. There is criticism in the House that Scottish Members are, perhaps, too dilatory in these matters. Today, Sir, I think you will note that we have reached only Question No. 41, and there were no Scottish Questions to Scottish Ministers.

Mr. Mellish: On a very serious point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today, the Foreign Secretary replied to Questions on disarmament, very important Questions, and he replied to several at the same time, making a very long statement. I do not deny that this is an important matter but, in cases of that kind, should not a statement be made after Questions to enable it to be discussed really intelligently and, at the same time, to expedite the whole business of Question Time? This matter today took up fifteen minutes of Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: Two paints have been put to me. On the first, when I was, in effect, asking for the help of the House yesterday, I was not shooting arrows particularly at Scottish Members any more than at anybody else, or at questioners rather than answerers. I just wanted everyone's help.
On the second point, I appreciate that there is much in what the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says. I am never quite sure how these things work out. It is very difficult, if one has

Ministerial statements after Questions, to prevent other business of the House being chiselled into by questions after statements.

Mr. Mellish: Most of it is rubbish, anyway.

Mr. Speaker: It is extremely difficult to know how it works out. I suspect that, on balance, when several Questions are answered together, it works out about the same. But I do not know: circumstances vary. I think that we must all hope that, by mutual restraint, we shall improve—and that includes myself.

ARRAEL COLLIERY, ABERTILLERY (EXPLOSION)

Mr. Ness Edwards: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (The Rev. Ll. Williams), who is ministering to the bereaved, I desire to ask the Minister of Power a Question of which I have given him Private Notice, namely, whether he will make a statement on the explosion at the Arrael Griffin Colliery, Abertillery, which occurred yesterday?

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): The House will have heard of the tragic explosion which took place yesterday morning at this colliery, in which, I am very sorry to say, 45 men lost their lives. Two men were slightly injured.
Her Majesty the Queen has expressed her deep distress at the accident and has sent her heartfelt sympathy to those who have been bereaved.
Rescue men, wearing breathing apparatus, though hampered by two big falls, have already examined almost the whole of the affected area.
Investigations into the cause of the accident will begin as soon as possible. I have directed Her Majesty's Chief Inspector to hold a public inquiry.
I am sure that the House will join me in expressing the deepest sympathy with the families and friends of those who lost their lives, and with those who were injured.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I thank the Minister for his statement and I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with his expressions of sympathy with the bereaved and those who were injured


and, I hope, with the admiration that he feels for the courage and gallantry of the rescue teams who went down the mine at very great risk to try to do something to relieve the situation.
I speak with very deep feeling. This was the pit in which I was brought up in the industry. Among the dead are many of my workmates and among the bereaved are many of my neighbours. Abertillery, which is my home town, must be a very sad place today.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will expedite the setting up of the inquiry? One hears of many troublesome questions, and these questions must have an early answer. Thirty-three years ago, an explosion occurred on the opposite side of the mountain, at Cwm, in which 53 men lost their lives. At that time, at Arrael Griffin, I was chairman of the miners' lodge, and I remember well that there was apprehension about the thickness of the barrier between the workings of the Marine Colliery and the No. 5 pit, Arrael Griffin. This matter was raised officially and we discussed it. We were satisfied that the barrier was thick enough.
The workings in which the explosion has occurred were moving in the direction of the old workings of the Marine Colliery. If there were apprehensions in the minds of my fellow workmen in those days, those apprehensions must be heightened by the tragedy which occurred yesterday. For the peace of mind of the men who will have to work at that colliery in future, I hope that the Minister will see that the inquiry is expedited and that the matter will be sifted very thoroughly indeed so that they may feel that all that is possible to make their working lives free of risk will have been done by those in authority.

Mr. Wood: First, I wish to say that I concur entirely, as, I am sure, the whole House does, in the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to the rescue teams who worked with such

great expedition and courage. We all appreciate the deep feeling with which the right hon. Gentleman spoke.
As regards the investigation, I have given my undertaking, which I readily repeat, that the inquiry will take place as soon as possible and directly the necessary preparations, of which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, are complete.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We thank the Minister and the whole House for the sympathy which has been expressed. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will direct that the inquiry shall make a thorough investigation into the problems of the special dangers which arise when work is proceeding towards old workings abandoned long ago? We have had examples of this quite recently in my part of Wales, fortunately without loss of life, but with some injuries. It is a special problem involving special dangers.
I associate myself with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) in hoping that the inspector and those associated with him will make a thorough inquiry into these matters.

Mr. Wood: I shall certainly draw to the attention of the Chief Inspector who, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is no stranger to the area, the considerations which have been raised.

BILL PRESENTED

NIGERIA INDEPENDENCE

Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Nigeria of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth, presented by Mr. Iain Macleod; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. R. A. Butler, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Alport; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

Orders of the Day — MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (MAGISTRATES' COURTS) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(NOTICE IN CASE OF ADULTERY.)

Where under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act a complaint is made on the ground that the defendant has committed adultery with a third person or under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section two or subsection (2) of section eight of this Act it is alleged that the complainant has committed adultery with a third person notice that an allegation of adultery has been made shall be sent by the Court by registered post to the last known address (if any) of the third person, who shall thereupon have the right within fourteen days from receiving such notice to intervene in the proceedings by taking such steps as may be prescribed.—[Sir F. Soskice.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.38 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
During the various stages of the Bill so far, hon. Members on both sides attached great importance to the subject matter of this new Clause. Broadly speaking, it is a Clause designed to have the following effect. Should matrimonial proceedings be brought in a court of summary jurisdiction in which the complainant alleges against the defendant that the defendant has committed an act of adultery with a third person, as the Bill is at present drafted and as the law stands at present, there is no machinery to ensure that the third person whose name is thus impugned is informed of the charge which has been made implicating him or her, nor has he or she, as the case may be, under the existing law any right to intervene in the proceedings in any way. The substantial result is that a perfectly innocent person may be wrongly impugned—"accused" is hardly the word, since it is not a criminal proceeding against that person—but, nevertheless, find himself or herself completely and utterly without redress.
We who support this proposed new Clause feel that that is a situation which may give rise to considerable injustice

in individual cases. If one pictures a court of summary jurisdiction in a comparatively limited community in which many people are well known to each other, it is optimistic to think that, although the proceedings may not be publicised in the Press, rumours will not get about as a result of the proceedings that a charge has been made against the person impugned.
Everybody knows how quickly rumour moves about in a limited community and the person whose name is involved may suffer very considerable damage. His or her employment may be affected. His or her matrimonial life, which may, up to that time, have been perfectly happy, may also be very greatly damaged. It is submitted that it is a grave injustice and a blot on the existing system that there should be no way in which that person, having been informed of the charge against him, can claim as of right to intervene in the proceedings to deny it.
This argument has been put on a number of occasions, and the Ministers in charge of the Bill have answered it. As an upshot of the discussions which have taken place, I hope that I am not being over-optimistic in thinking that their minds were not wholly closed, but that they have recognised that this is a problem of difficulty and importance. It is obviously important, because it is repugnant, I should have thought, to all our concepts of justice that a person should be liable to be accused of something and given no opportunity to rebut the charge made against him.
It has been said by those who support the present law that this situation may arise in other proceedings. For example, a person's name may be referred to adversely in the course of proceedings for libel or slander. It may also happen in other proceedings before the courts. That may be true, but, nevertheless, it is no reason why one should have an additional source of danger in our law when it would be a matter of small difficulty to remove it.
It has been said that proceedings which should be cheap and expeditious would be complicated if such a provision were introduced. That complication is very much over-stated. There would not be much complication if the person charged, the third person whose name is impugned, had to be informed.


If it is not easy to find him or her it could be done by advertisement. But, broadly speaking, there is little difficulty in serving a notice of summons on people who may be involved in proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction. There would not be much complication involved by their being given the right to intervene in proceedings.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General said that this would be a terrible thing. People would be entitled to instruct solicitors and counsel to appear on their behalf. He and I are the last people who should make that suggestion, but, in any case, this is a terror which has been rather over-painted by the Solicitor-General. We are not either so expensive or ferocious as the hon. and learned Gentleman may seem to imply. We sometimes think, in all modesty, that we are of some use in helping judges in our courts to arrive at a right conclusion on the facts. I do not think that it can be said to be a serious objection that solicitors and counsel may be instructed to defend a person whose reputation is brought into jeopardy.
3.45 p.m.
It has been said that this matter has been carefully weighed and that no glaring cases, or at any rate not many, of injustice have come to notice. That may well be, because people, especially those in modest circumstances, sometimes suffer in silence. When people have not a ready means of redress they are apt to think that nothing can be done for them, but, nevertheless, they may have been subjected to grave damage. I would ask the House to picture the matrimonial situation. Picture the husband and wife of one of whom it is said that he or she has committed adultery with a person involved in matrimonial proceedings in the court of summary jurisdiction. The Solicitor-General says that, according to our law, it might well be held that the persons involved in the proceedings might be found by the court to have committed adultery with the individual whose name was impugned but that it did not follow as a matter of law that the person whose name had been impugned had been a party to that adultery and had committed adultery with the parties to the proceedings.
That is a very abstract and artificial concept which would not carry immediate conviction in most homes, where people look at these things with a robust common sense and think that, if A committed adultery with B, then B probably has done so with A. That is a concept the extent of which should not be enlarged if it can be avoided.
Having on more than one occasion put the case and having heard the answers given, and replied that they did not seem to be convincing, and being in a frame of mind in which there is room, I hope, for some confidence that the Ministers in charge of the Bill may see reason at this late stage and change their minds, I should like to leave the matter there. It has been fully discussed. I put this proposal forward as one which will not be difficult to operate and will prevent the risk of injustice. I therefore hope that the Minister will feel that at long last he is able to accept it.

Mr. Graham Page: If I am in order, Mr. Speaker, I would—

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. Member is not in order. I will call him if and when the House decides to read the proposed new Clause a Second time. The Question at present before us is, "That the Clause be read a Second time".

Mr. Leo Abse: I regret that this is an occasion when I cannot agree with the view put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice).I indicated this on Second Reading. I believe that this proposal is remote from the facts of matrimonial proceedings as they are at present conducted. Magistrates' courts and matrimonial courts should, in my view, provide as swift and simple a remedy as possible. There are already considerable tendencies at work by way of local arrangements whereby pleadings are almost coming into existence. Although this may commend itself to some lawyers, I realise the necessity for a woman to be able to get to the courts quickly and to obtain a speedy decision. I regard it as most undesirable that additional work should be involved, as has been suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend.
I am appalled by this suggestion. It may come to having to advertise to make certain that the alleged adulterer has notice of the proceedings. I should


have thought that that was an appalling idea. At the moment, the privacy of the court ensures that the alleged acts are not publicised. Now we have introduced into the argument the extraordinary notion that the name of the alleged adulterer must be publicised in all the local newspapers by way of a public advertisement. The conclusion which my right hon. and learned Friend has reached is inevitable as long as he says that notice shall be given. Before we knew where we were, an affidavit of service inevitably would lead, as apparently my right hon. and learned Friend envisages, to the possibility of public advertisement.
I regret that I do not regard it as desirable that notices should be served which could bring in further solicitors and counsel. The Legal Aid Fund, which will have a heavy burden imposed upon it as a consequence of legal aid Shortly coming into existence in the matrimonial courts, does not need to have this additional amount, which, in my view, is brought in not because there is a real need, but from an approach which is essentially legalistic.
I ask those who support that view where they are going to stop. For example, a wife may claim that there has been constructive desertion when she is able to show that she holds a reasonable belief that her husband has committed adultery. That is to say, in a desertion case before the magistrates she is able to introduce evidence touching upon a reasonable belief that her husband has committed adultery as a cause of action to establish that desertion has taken place. Do the sponsors of the new Clause say that in desertion cases where such a reasonable belief is to be pleaded, notice must be given?
Again, a husband can successfully plead a defence to a desertion charge when the wife has so conducted herself that he can show to the court that she has given him reasonable ground for supposing that she has committed adultery. In those cases, is it intended that notice must be given? Despite the considerable discussion in Committee, I do not think that this matter has been thought out. I am most unimpressed by the fact that if we do not publicise the adultery in this way, gossip will leak out.
I represent a constituency composed of a considerable number of small villages and townships. I assure the sponsors of the Clause that in such places in Wales it will be a case not of the gossip that creeps out of the courts, but of the gossip that will creep in from outside. There is no danger that anybody would be affected, because quietly, within the confines of the court, a matter such as we are discussing is being adjudicated upon. In large cities, where this does not apply, my experience has taught me that in many cases a lamentable individual act of adultery by a husband is unknown to the wife and that the serving of the notice upon him will bring to the attention of the wife the fact that it has occurred. A second family can be disrupted.
I do not say that from speculation. I am well aware that in divorce cases, where it is necessary to serve such notices or proceedings—for example, where adultery has been revived even though it took place many years before, and revived at that stage because of a subsequent matrimonial offence—when petition is served upon the man who may have committed adultery five or ten years before, great harm can be done.
Whatever may be said about the demands of justice, the law works best when it protects family life. There is a peculiarly Victorian odour to this desire to serve a notice of adultery. My view, from experience of matrimonial cases, is that within married life there are many worse acts of cruelty by a husband to a wife, such as continuous parsimony, which could disrupt the family, than one individual act of adultery. I find distasteful the idea that we have got to pursue the adulterer. It belongs almost to another century. For my part, I cannot be a party to the introduction of a Clause which serves no useful purpose and could act as a disrupting influence in family life.

Mr. Graham Page: This matter was fully discussed both on Second Reading and in Committee. All I want to do today is to associate myself with the words spoken by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), who moved the new Clause, and to express my support for it.
It is not a matter of pursuing the adulterer, as the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said. An allegation of


adultery may have such lasting social and legal effects that the man or woman so accused should have the opportunity of appearing and defending himself or herself. Evidence was given before the Royal Commission that there have been cases, expressed as many cases, in which injustice and hardship had occurred by reason of the fact that the person alleged to have committed adultery knew nothing of the proceedings until later and then had no chance of putting forward his or her own case in defence.
There would be no serious complication in the proceedings before the magistrates if this form of procedure were introduced. It is merely a matter of giving notice to the person with whom it is alleged that one party has committed adultery and giving that person the opportunity of coming before the court. It is not bringing him before the court on a summons, but giving him an opportunity to make his case in answer to an allegation which has been made against him, not just an allegation of libel or slander, as the right hon. and learned Member for Newport said, but an allegation of adultery, which has its social and legal effects from the results of proceedings before the magistrates, however much in camera those proceedings may be.
There is no doubt that that becomes semi-public. The rumour gets round. Indeed, a case was quoted before the Royal Commission in which the rumour had got round about a professional man who had been accused in court proceedings of adultery and had no opportunity of defending his good name. This procedure could be introduced without any complication, and I therefore support the new Clause.

Mr. Ronald Bell: This is obviously a difficult question of balance of advantage. The new Clause is put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) as something which would help the person named. There must be the odd case, such as the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) bas just referred, where a person—normally, it would be a woman—would like the opportunity of going before the court and resisting the imputation.
My belief is that, on balance, the people named in the proceedings would suffer detriment from the new Clause. I need not expand that thought very much, because I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has said. In nine cases out of ten I believe that the person named in this way in the magistrates' courts—and, normally, it would be a woman, with whom a husband was alleged to have committed adultery—would much prefer that no notice of the matter were ever delivered to her house. She would far prefer that the matter should be heard in camera and as little said about it as possible.
In many cases, the person who is thus alleged to have committed adultery with the husband will actually have committed adultery with him and the new Clause would do far more to disrupt family life in houses outside the one affected by the proceedings than could conceivably be done to protect it. The Clause would be a left-handed gift to the people whom the right hon. and learned Member for Newport wants to benefit. For that simple, practical reason, I shall oppose the new Clause.

4.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): This is, obviously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, a difficult matter, in which there are arguments to be weighed on both sides. Indeed, the arguments seem to me, if I may say so with respect, to have been well deployed in today's debate, as they were in Committee and on Second Reading.
As my right hon. Friend and I stated in Committee that we would, we came away from the Committee without our minds closed on this matter. I posed before the Committee the difficulties we saw in accepting the sort of procedure which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) envisages under his new Clause, but in deference to his views and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and various other hon. Members we did undertake to review the whole matter from the beginning and anew. I know that the House will accept from me that we did that in a completely open-minded way.
In particular, we did try to see whether we could get some simple procedure


which would obviate some of the complications, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself referred to, but we have not been able to do so. In the end, therefore, I find myself in agreement with the view put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, and I shall have to invite the House to reject this new Clause if the right hon. and learned Gentleman concludes he should press the matter.
I said that we looked at the matter from the beginning and anew with open minds. The first thing we found was the point which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontypool, that, by and large, it is quite true that where allegations of adultery are made in legal proceedings notice is not given to the third person who is implicated; still less is he given power to intervene in the suit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby suggests in an Amendment which he has put down to the new Clause and which, I think inevitably, gives the right to intervene, cross-examine and appeal.
Some of the matters have been mentioned. The hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned the matter of defamation. I think, if I may say so with respect, that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby dismissed that a bit too lightly. It does raise precisely this point. It arises in this way. There may be, say, an action for defamation under the Slander of Women Act in which it is alleged by the plaintiff that she, the woman, has had her chastity defamed; and, indeed, if there is a plea of justification, then that is how the matter will come into court. It is quite clear that it will be alleged, "You have committed adultery with X." However, X is not given notice; X is not brought into the proceedings.
It is exactly the same in a very different type of case which I mentioned to the Committee, and that is the case of maintenance. There again, it may be sought to terminate an order for maintenance or to reduce an order for maintenance on the ground that the wife has committed adultery; but the adulterer—the male adulterer—is not given notice and is not allowed to intervene.
It could arise, thirdly, under a deed of separation. A very common form of deed of separation and maintenance is that-the maintenance shall be payable so long as the wife remains chaste and unmarried; and it may arise in an action in the common law courts on the deed that the husband will say, "You have committed adultery and, therefore, brought the operative clause of the deed into play," but notice is not given in that case to the third party with whom the wife is alleged to have committed adultery.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned constructive desertion. I need not expatiate upon that because he made the point perfectly clear. That is a fourth example. Wilful neglect to maintain can be litigated not only in the High Court, out in the magistrates' courts. It is a ground for resisting such claim that the wife has committed adultery or, indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the husband had a reasonable belief that she did. Particulars would have to be given, but the third party is not brought in.
I mentioned proceedings in the High Court for wilful neglect. There is also the case in the High Court where the petitioner of either sex who is seeking a divorce and has himself committed adultery has to put in a discretion statement which afterwards is subject to public examination; that is an a fortiori case, and yet the person with whom that party is mentioned as having committed adultery is not given notice and cannot intervene to deny the charge.
Therefore, in the end one finds that the general rule is that there is no such right, but that alone in the particular case where there is a suit for divorce in the High Court has the third party with whom adultery is alleged the right to intervene and deny it—the right to be made a party.
It seems to me that that right is given for the reason that, whereas in all the other cases which I have mentioned, and which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the spouse who is alleged to have committed adultery can be relied upon if the allegation is untrue to deny it, in the particular case of a suit for divorce in the High Court alone one cannot rely on the spouse to deny adultery, because the spouse may have an interest in terminating the marriage. There is in that


case a danger of collusion. There is little danger of collusion in the magistrates' court.
Take the ordinary case of an allegation against the wife that she has committed adultery, or an allegation against the husband that he has committed adultery and, therefore, maintenance is sought. If he has not committed adultery, he has an incentive to deny it, because his obligation to his wife will depend upon it. Not only is there an incentive to deny it but also, of course, an incentive to call the third person with whom he is alleged to have committed adultery, to support him in his denial. Therefore, it seems to me that for that reason the case of divorce on the ground of adultery in the High Court is distinguished.
One does there get a very complicated procedure whereby the third person is given full notice of the allegations, he can intervene in the suit, he can be made a party, he can be represented; and still more—and this is crucial when one considers the procedural difficulties—there are two separate issues then before the court: has the wife or the husband committed adultery with X, and, secondly, has X committed adultery with the wife or husband? That is necessary, of course, because there may be evidence which is admissible against the spouse but which is not admissible against the third party. That is how, it seems to me, one does not start with the general proposition that notice should be given in all these types of cases.
A second matter that we re-examined was whether domestic harm could possibly result by introducing this procedure, or whether more harm would result from withholding the provisions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks. On the whole, I find myself convinced again by the arguments which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontypool have put forward. At the moment, these proceedings, unlike proceedings in the High Court, are held in private. They do not receive publicity. Of course, one cannot dismiss out of hand the possibility that rumours get out, but there is that fundamental difference that they are not reported, that they are in private.
I myself feel that very great damage might result in the circumstances which

were put by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Gentleman opposite, wherein a registered letter arrives at the household and it is immediately advertised to the wife of the third party, or to the husband of the third party, that there is an allegation of adultery. In trying to measure the social mischief, therefore, at best I would say that there is a very nice balance here. On the whole, on a review of the matter, it seems to me that the contention, in the way it was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South and the hon. Member for Pontypool, is convincing.
We looked again at the question of how much injustice might result, not in the sense of the social injustice to which I have just referred, but in a case where there is a finding of adultery not against the third party but against the wife or the husband and a rumour gets out that it is the third party that is implicated. I saw the learned President of the Divorce Division, Lord Merriman, again, not only to discuss this matter but also to see whether one could find a procedural modus vivendi. He reiterated that he had never known a case of a miscarriage of justice and that he felt that he would have been bound to have heard of it if one had occurred.
It is true that Mr. Powell, in giving evidence before the Morton Commission on Marriage and Divorce, said that there were "some", but "not many", contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said. On the other hand, another learned magistrate, Mr. Davis, told the Commission that in his experience he was not aware of such a case, and although it was possible to think that such a case might occur it seemed to him to be a flight into the realm of imagination and fancy. Mr. Raphael, giving evidence on behalf of the Magistrates' Association, said that in his experience he had never known a case of injustice.
Although, therefore, one cannot dismiss the possibility, and it is definitely a factor to be weighed, it seems to me a minimal factor that operates in trying to weigh the advantage or disadvantage. I took advantage of a visit to the Justices' Clerks' Association, which would have to operate this Clause, to test its views. Those to whom I spoke were of the opinion that the danger of injustice was


not really a practical one and that the procedural difficulties would be most unwelcome in the magistrates' courts.
This brings me to those procedural difficulties. We have ventilated these before and I have already spoken longer than I had intended. At the moment, the finding that the magistrates have to make under Section 45 (2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, is that
The court, after hearing the evidence and the panties, shall make the order for which the complaint is made or dismiss the complaint.
The complaint of course, as appears from Clause 1 of the Bill, is the complaint that the spouse who is before the court has committed adultery.
If we allowed a third party to intervene, it seems to me that he might well succeed in showing that there was no evidence against him, but there might still be evidence on which the court was entitled to act as against the spouse who was charged with adultery. It seems to me, therefore, that one is inevitably pushed to the conclusion which the High Court has had to arrive at. In other words, one must have separate findings as against the wife or the husband and the third party.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport, rightly, in his speech recoiled from such a conclusion. I think that he described it in Committee as an idiotic fiction. That puts it more strongly than I would care to put it. It is merely giving weight to the fact that what may be evidence against one party is not evidence against the other. But I entirely agree with him that it would be most unwelcome in this sphere in the magistrates' courts. It would cast a great burden upon them. It would not be generally understood. It creates extraordinary difficulties when one comes to appeal, and one must give the right to appeal if one gives a right to intervene. Are we to allow the third party to appeal against a finding only against the wife if the husband succeeds?
Weighing all these arguments as best we can, and genuinely approaching this matter with a desire to find a way through the procedural difficulties, it seems to me that the balance of advantage lies in maintaining the simplicity of the present procedure, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Pontypool. I do not suppose that

the House will wish me to pursue further some of the procedural complications that would ensue, though I would be willing to do so. Although I see that there are arguments on both sides, my right hon. Friend and I have firmly reached the conclusion that the balance of advantage now lies in maintaining the present position.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sure that the whole House is obliged to the Solicitor-General for the painstaking care which he has given, as he promised us in Committee, to a reconsideration of this troublesome question, but I am by no means convinced by the conclusion which he has reached. This is not a matter which divides the House on a party line and I very much hope that the House will express its opinion on it in the Division Lobby, because I believe that it is a matter in which a question of elementary justice is involved.
I appreciate that there are also arguments about social convenience. As the Solicitor-General has said and other hon. Members have pointed out, eventually we shall have to decide this on a balance of the arguments about what is right and proper. First, I am not particularly impressed by that series of arguments which the Solicitor-General put to the House in endeavouring to show that there are other cases coming before the courts in which injustice results. He told us of other forms of action, such as defamation, in which an accused party or a party against whom some allegations are made has no opportunity of defending himself or herself.
There may be such cases in the defamation and slander of women, and so forth, but it seems to me that all these arguments are irrelevant. What we have to consider here basically is the simple question whether or not injustice is done to a person against whom in any court a charge of adultery is made if that person has no opportunity of defending himself or herself.

Mr. Ronald Bell: It is not quite right to say that the charge of adultery is made against that person, except inferentially. The charge is made against the other spouse. The hon. Member argues that that necessarily implies that the


other party to the adultery committed adultery. In practice, indeed in law, the effect of a finding of the magistrates' court in respect of the person named would be absolutely nil. It would be of no legal effect against him and he is not legally imperilled in these proceedings.

Mr. Fletcher: This really is splitting hairs. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) were at one in saying that, as a matter of public concept, if there is a finding that A has committed adultery with B it is assumed by the public that B has committed adultery with A. Although there may be technical arguments in which the finding is not conclusive against B but only against A, from the social point of view the harm is done if any court makes an award on the basis that A has committed adultery with B. The harm is done to B because the public, naturally, draws its own obvious conclusions from such findings.
Apart from that, I was not impressed by what the hon. and learned Gentleman told us about the distinction between divorce cases in the High Court and cases in a magistrates' court. He seemed to be saying that the reason why a co-respondent or a party named in a divorce court is and always has been given an opportunity of appearing, intervening and putting forward his defence is that in the divorce court there are opportunities for collusion which do not exist in a magistrates' court.

The Solicitor-General: I did not give exhaustive reasons. I mentioned that as the main reason, but there is also the fact that the third party, if he is a man, is always liable for costs in the High Court and may be liable for damages, and we shall be bringing that complication in here as well. I mentioned a third reason, which is the fact that High Court proceedings are in public whereas a magistrates' court proceedings are in private.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has improved his case. I think that he will find, as a matter of history—bearing in mind that proceedings in the divorce court are descendants of cases formally heard in the ecclesiastical courts—the reason quite obviously is that if a charge

of adultery is made it is and has always been regarded as a very serious charge, and any person against whom that charge is made should have an opportunity of knowing about it and of defending himself. That is obviously, to my mind, as a matter of history, the reason why the practice in the divorce court has always obtained. I think that it is a valid reason.
In one part of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I thought that he almost said that a charge of adultery does not very much matter and that if somebody who is not a party to the proceedings is involved in such a charge, as long as no one hears about it, it is better not to do anything about it and better perhaps not to take the risk that anyone should hear about it. I do not think that even in this day and age the hon. and learned Gentleman can pursue that argument.
I do not think that he can persuade the House that one can brush aside a charge of adultery against a person as something which does not much matter, and as being something which a person, if he wants to resist it by his own evidence ought not to have an opportunity of appearing in court. I think that if that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying he is saying something contrary to the general expression of public opinion even in this day.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also quoted various authorities. He said that he had had discussions with Lord Merriman, the President of the Divorce Court, and others. I was not impressed with that. If we are to rely upon the weight of evidence of those who have considered this matter in the past, I think we should start by reminding ourselves of what the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce said. The Royal Commission considered this matter at great length, with a good deal of evidence, and came to the conclusion with regard to notice of adultery to a third party in a magistrates' court—I quote paragraph 1123:
…we recommend that notice of an allegation of adultery should be sent by the court by registered post to the last known address, if any, of the third person; that person would then have the right to appear and defend himself or herself against the charge. We consider that if this simple procedure were adopted, it would, so far as is reasonably practicable, rule out the possibility of an injustice being done.


That is what we are aiming at. We are trying to rule out the possibility of injustice being done.
May I, in parenthesis, say this first to the hon. and learned Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool? I think that we could exaggerate the cases in which there is a risk, that by giving notice we bring something to the attention of the alleged adulterous spouse who otherwise would pass into oblivion. May we bear in mind that in a very large number of these cases brought in magistrates' courts where a matrimonial order is sought on the ground of adultery there will be no charge against any named person. There will be an allegation of adultery with a person unknown, which is quite sufficient to entitle the applicant to an order. I think that that is so in the overwhelming number of cases. Whatever the proportion may be, in all these cases where the allegation of adultery is with a person unknown no question of notice and no question of justice or injustice arises.
In the remaining cases where there is an allegation of misconduct with a person named, my impression is that in the preponderant majority of these cases it will not make the slightest difference to the person named whether he or she has an opportunity of defending or not because, in so far as the guilt is admitted and it is capable of proof, the person to whom such notice is given will not desire to defend it, will not want to intervene and will not want to take any steps. Therefore, we are merely dealing with a residual—the limited number of cases in which a false accusation is made about a named person to whom very grave social consequences might result. We are dealing with that very limited number of cases and putting forward this new Clause as a matter of justice so that in those cases there should be no opportunity of injustice occurring.
As to the question of whether injustice has resulted or might have resulted in the past, I do not think that the Solicitor-General gave full effect to the evidence given before the Royal Commission when it made its Report. He referred to a conversation which he had had with Lord Merriman; but what I think is much more important is to read to the House the evidence which Lord Merriman gave to the Royal Commis-

sion, because what he said then is on record. I am, of course, not doubting what he said to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Solicitor-General: I would not have mentioned what Lord Merriman said to me unless he had already said it in another place.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: All that I want to do is to remind the House of what Lord Merriman said when he was giving considered evidence to the Royal Commission, to which I attach some weight. As reported in the Minutes of Evidence Book 14–15, page 420, and in answer to Question 3,436 by Mr. Justice Pearce, a member of the Commission, Lord Merriman, said:
At any rate, he ought to be given notice in some form or another, I think this is clear. At one time all that happened was that the husband took out a summons to discharge a magistrates' order on the ground that since the making thereof the wife had committed adultery, no more. She might go to court not knowing the details of what she had been charged with. The Divisional Court put that right by insisting that proper particulars of the charge must be given. By the same reasoning, the alleged adulterer would be informed of what he or she has been charged with.
In addition, there has been some dispute about what Mr. Davis, the police court magistrate to whom the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) referred, said. In view of the fact that the Solicitor-General seemed to challenge what the hon. Member for Crosby said, I think, again, that we ought to have on record the answer as contained in the Minutes of Evidence before the Royal Commission. In answer Question 2,723, Mr. Davis said:
In the first place, I have in my experience known many instances where proceedings had been taken in a magistrates' court based purely on adultery. It may be that desertion could have been added but in fact in many cases adultery alone had been relied upon. I see no difficulty in practice in rules being provided…whereby a third party should be notified of the proceedings and given an opportunity of appearing and taking part. It is a matter of interest because the procedure for bringing in a third party is not unknown in magistrates' courts in other spheres.
I shall not read it, but then he gave a specific instance where a grave injustice and serious social consquences had arisen because a quite untrue allegation had been made which was bitterly resented


by the lady who subsequently heard it and then she found that she had no opportunity whatever of protesting or defending her honour, despite the very serious damage she had suffered in the eyes and opinion of her neighbours as a result.
The only other judicial, or semi-judicial body which considered the matter was the Arthian Davies Committee. That Committee on which, incidentally, this Bill is based, was almost evenly divided in its opinion. The majority, six as against five, was against any change in the existing procedure, but the minority, consisting of the chairman, Mr. Mac-Dermot, and others, said that:
Whilst recognising the force of the objections in justice to persons against whom such allegations are made these rights should be given whatever the practical difficulties.
That brings us to the practical difficulties about which the Solicitor-General had something to say. I thought he exaggerated the difficulties. As is recognised, we are not dealing with anything like the majority, or a large proportion, of the cases which have come before the magistrates' courts. We are dealing with a very small number of cases in which a false accusation is made, a false accusation of adultery against someone who would be seriously injured and prejudiced if he or she had no opportunity of defending his or her honour.
Surely, in those cases there ought to be an opportunity for intervening and appearing. The mere fact that there were such an opportunity would, in my view, ensure that in future there could be no possible cause for complaint. If in those few cases a person wished to challenge the validity of an accusation,

all that would be required on the receipt of notice would be the right to intervene on the lines suggested by the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby.

I am entirely in favour, as is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summers-kill), of ensuring that these proceedings for matrimonial relief in the magistrates' courts should be as simple, as speedy and as expeditious as possible. I would not be supporting this new Clause if I thought it were calculated in any way to complicate the ordinary run of cases which come before magistrates'courts. I am sure that it is not. We are dealing here with the exceptional cases. In the exceptional case all that is required is that the person to whom this notice should be given should have the opportunity of sending a notice to the court. The court would then be aware that it is not a simple routine matter, but an exceptional and unusual matter requiring special consideration.

Therefore, my own view is that the requirements of justice are in favour of this new Clause being accepted. I do not think that there would be any social inconvenience of the kind that the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested. I hope that the House, having listened to the arguments and knowing that there is a balance of argument which does not necessarily divide the House on party lines, will support the new Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 195.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, C. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, A. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, Thomas
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Jeger, George
Owen, Will
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Page, Graham
Swingler, Stephen


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.
Symonds, J B.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Kelley, Richard
Peart, Frederick
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pentland, Norman
Thornton, Ernest


King, Dr. Horace
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur
Warbey, William


Lipton, Marcus
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Loughlin, Charles
Rankin, John
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Redhead, E. C.
White, Mrs. Eirene


McCann, John
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Whitlock, William


MacColl, James
Ross, William
Wilkins, W. A.


McInnes, James
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mackie, John
Short, Edward
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mahon, Simon
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Woof, Robert


Manuel, A. C.
Skeffington, Arthur
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mendelson, J. J.
Slater Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Millan, Bruce
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)



Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moody, A. S.
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Rogers


Mort, D. L.
Steele, Thomas





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Freeth, Denzil
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Aitken, W. T.
Gammans, Lady
Marlowe, Anthony


Allason, James
Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Goodhew, Victor
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Arbuthnot, John
Gower, Raymond
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Barter, John
Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray


Batsford, Brian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Grimond, J.
Mills, Stratton


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grimston, Sir Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morgan, William


Berkeley, Humphry
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholson, Sir Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Michael


Bingham, R. M.
Hendry, Forbes
Nugent, Sir Richard


Black, Sir Cyril
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Bossom, Clive
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Box, Donald
Hooking, Philip N.
Peel, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Brewis, John
Holt, Arthur
Peyton, John


Brooman-White, R.
Hopkins, Alan
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pitman, I. J.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitt, Miss Edith


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pott, Percivall


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, J. Enoch


Cary, Sir Robert
James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Prior, J. M. L.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jennings, J. C.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ramsden, James


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees, Hugh


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, David


Corfield, F. V.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Robertson, Sir David


Costain, A. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Coulson, J. M.
Kershaw, Anthony
Robson Brown, Sir William


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Lagden, Godfrey
Roots, William


Critchley, Julian
Leavey, J, A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Ronald


Cunningham, Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lilley, F. J. P.
Sharples, Richard


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Shaw, M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Peter


Eden, John
MacArthur, Ian
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Elliott, R. W.
McLaren, Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stodart, J. A.


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Finlay, Graeme
McMaster, Stanley R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
Tapsell, Peter

Clause 7.—(SUSPENSION OR CESSATION OF ORDERS.)

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 11, line 8, to leave out "cohabiting" and to insert:
residing together as man and wife.
I gather that it is your intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that with this Amendment we should also consider the Amendments in lines 10, 13 and 33. To some extent it may also be necessary to say something about the Amendment in line 17 after "apply", to insert:
when the order is made for a cause or complaint mentioned in paragraphs (h) or (i) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act, or
but that one raises, as I understand it, a separate point, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) will have something to say, and I think that it would be convenient if she were allowed to move it separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): It would be convenient to move that one separately.

Mr. Fletcher: The object of this series of Amendments, which I am sure is obvious to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is not at first sight obvious to the uninitiated The Amendment which I am moving seeks to leave out the word "cohabiting" and to insert: the words,
residing together as man and wife".
These Amendments are somewhat different from thcose considered in Committee, and result from a lengthy and useful discussion which we had there following a debate in another place. They are being considered at this stage partly because the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General and his right hon. Friend found themselves in a difficulty, with which we sympathise. It is hoped that, as a result of the interval that has elapsed since the Committee proceedings of 5th May, the Government have been able to give favourable consideration to these Amendments.
Perhaps I can best assist the House by first indicating the broad social problem which confronts us in this matter, and then try to explain the legal subtleties which are involved in choosing apt words to give effect to what. I hope, is generally desired.
Clause 7 provides for the suspension or cessation of matrimonial orders in certain circumstances and the operative words are:
Where a matrimonial … order is made while the parties to the marriage in question are cohabiting—
and "cohabiting" is the relevant word—
the order shall not be enforceable and no liability shall accrue thereunder until they have ceased to cohabit; and
if in the case of a matrimonial order they continue to cohabit for the period of three months beginning with the date of the making of the order, the order shall cease to have effect at the expiration of that period.
In normal social conditions, such a provision in the law would be unexceptionable. Prima facie, it is obviously rational that if a matrimonial order is made in matrimonial proceedings in a magistrates' court, giving either spouse the right to live apart, the right to a certain amount of maintenance, rights about the custody of the children and rights to the other spouse to access and various other consequential provisions, it is natural that such an order should not operate—or, if it does operate, should cease to operate—in the event of the parties to the marriage resuming normal matrimonial relationships—to use a general term.
The reason is obvious. Proceedings are brought in a magistrates' court when the parties are not seeking a divorce and when the marriage has not necessarily broken up permanently and not in circumstances in which one or other, or both, of the parties is seeking a dissolution of the marriage with a view, perhaps immediately and perhaps after an interval, to making some other matrimonial alliance.
In most cases, the proceedings are taken in circumstances in which the marriage still remains afoot. The whole House, not least the Home Secretary, is very much concerned with the whole problem of reconciliation. These marriages have not broken up and in some cases there is a hope that there will be not only reconciliation, but restoration to normal married and family relationships between the parties. The very valuable activities of the Marriage Guidance Council and similar bodies are very much to be encouraged
Therefore, it is quite right that there should be a provision for the suspension of matrimonial orders in appropriate cases, but we are concerned today with the social facts of a peculiar and, I hope, only temporary phase, which must, nevertheless, be borne in mind. Those are the salient characteristics which give rise to this series of Amendments. It is notorious that in the overcrowded housing conditions which exist not only in London, but in many provincial cities as well, when matrimonial differences arise and a wife is deserted, or when the husband commits adultery or cruelty and the wife becomes entitled to leave the matrimonial home, there are circumstances which make it impossible for her to leave.
It may be that she has no money with which to find some other place to live and to which to take the children. Even if she has the wherewithal to look for other accommodation, it may be that there is no possibility of obtaining it. That is a situation which, I know from experience, exists in Islington. There are many cases in which the injured wife—and it obtains in reverse, but it is more often the injured wife than the injured husband—is entitled to matrimonial relief but, through force of circumstances beyond her control, cannot leave the matrimonial home and has to stay there.
In some cases there may be two or three rooms and it may be possible to make arrangements for her to occupy a separate room or separate bedroom, but, unfortunately, there are many other cases in those circumstances of people living in such overcrowded conditions that they have not even the number of rooms which would enable am injured wife en-

titled to matrimonial relief to occupy a separate room in the matrimonial home. Sometimes, a curtain is put up to make some artificial division in the limited amount of accommodation available.
What we are hoping to achieve by these Amendments is that in those cases—and, unfortunately, there is a substantial number of them—the wife should not be deprived of her ordinary rights under the law merely because she cannot go away and find some other accommodation but, through force of circumstances, has to live in the same house with her husband, even though he has committed adultery or has been cruel or has committed some other offence which entitles her to relief. That is the case with which we are trying to deal and on that basis I do not think that the case needs arguing.
As I understand—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—as the law stands at present the rule about the suspension OT cessation of an order operates if the parties have ceased to reside together. I admit at once that there is some improvement in the Bill as it stands in that a change has already been made because the operative word is now "cohabit" rather than "reside together"
5.0 p.m.
The question which then arises is what is meant by "cohabit" and what is meant by "cohabitation". I do not think I can do better than quote the Solicitor-General, although I am not sure whether he still adheres to the view which he expressed during the Second Reading debate when he advised the House that the words "ceased to cohabit" meant to live together on terms of husband and wife. I assume that if the hon. and learned Gentleman adheres to that he would have no objection to this Amendment because it seeks to replace the expression "cohabit" with words which the hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think are identical in meaning. But the merit of the change, in my submission, is that it would make the operation of the Clause far more intelligent and helpful to the courts Which have to administer the law, to the poor people for whose benefit the Bill is being passed and, incidentally, for the practitioners who have to advise them.
During the Committee stage we had some discussion about what "cohabit" meant. I think that I ought to draw attention to the report of the Royal Commission. The Arthian Davies Committee considered it first and then this question was considered by the Royal Commission. The Commission's recommendation was carried by 18 members to one. It recommended:
If a wife obtains an order on the ground of her husband's wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance for her … her husband should be liable to make payments under the order, and it should be enforceable, notwithstanding that husband and wife are living together in circumstances amounting to full cohabitation …
I quoted that because the words "full cohabitation" are used. It may be that there is some subtle distinction between "cohabitation" and "full cohabitation". The substantive point is this: I think it true to say that in ordinary, common parlance, in the English language used among the community affected by this Bill, "cohabitation" is thought of as meaning, in the case of husband and wife, living together on terms of husband and wife. There was a question whether that necessarily, as the Solicitor-General said, involves sexual relations. In some cases it may, in others it may not. It may well depend on the age of the parties.
I think that "cohabitation" is phraseology which it is unfortunate to use in this Bill in this context if we can avoid so doing. Therefore, we are suggesting that that word should be left out and that we should substitute the words:
residing together as man and wife".
If those words were accepted, the result would be generally understood to be that a wife can continue to be eligible for matrimonial relief to which she is entitled, even though she resides in the same promises as she has hitherto resided, and even though she resides in the same room, if there is only one room provided, however, that the couple do not reside there as man and wife.
Experience shows, from reports in the Law Reports and in the Sunday Press, that cases often arise in which the wife is entitled to relief but continues to live in the same dwelling-house because there is nowhere else for her to go, although she has ceased to live there with her husband as man and wife. I think it

very desirable that this Clause should make clear that if that be the fact, she should still remain eligible for the matrimonial relief which this Bill is designed to give.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has deployed almost exactly the same argument as I should wish to deploy in moving the Amendment in my name, in line 28, at the end to insert:
or
(iv) such as is mentioned in paragraph (b). (c) or (h) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act, if the order be an interim order".
I suggest that it might be convenient if that Amendment were discussed at the same time.

The Solicitor-General: I speak for myself, but I do not think that that course would be at all convenient. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has obviously involved some overlapping of argument that is inherent in the situation, but it seems to me that there are two quite separate points and that it would be inconvenient to discuss both at the same time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that we had better deal with them separately.

Mr. Fletcher: The Amendment to Clause 8, page 13, line 4, deals with an entirely different point. I was hoping that it would be called separately and that with it I might have mentioned the Amendment to Clause 2, in page 5, line 30.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Amendment to Clause 8, page 13, line 4, has not been selected.

Mr. Fletcher: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I had hoped you would have called the Amendment to Clause 8 separately. It is a separate point and it would not have been convenient to deploy the argument in support of that Amendment at the same time as I was arguing in favour of the Amendments to Clause 7. If I may, I should like to deal with that when I come to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Amendment in page 13, line 4, is not selected.

Mr. Fletcher: I will bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think, however, that I should say that it would


be inconvenient, and it might be more inconvenient to the House, were I to resume my speech to deal with that. I would much rather deal with it when I came to it.

The Solicitor-General: It seems to me that the proposed Amendment to Clause 8, in page 13, line 4, raises the same point as does the Amendment to Clause 2, page 5, line 30. Those two fit together and they do not refer to the same point as the four Amendments to which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has been speaking.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment to Clause 2 has not been selected.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Islington, East said that he did not think there had been any argument as to the social background, the social problem, against which he set his argument and with respect I agree with that. The problem with which we are faced regarding the terms "cohabiting" or "residing together" or "living together"—whatever expression we may use in this Clause—is the problem that in certain circumstances it may not be possible for a wife to take up residence under a separate roof away from her husband. I need not go over that argument, because the hon. Gentleman opposite has deployed it with clarity and force. Section 1 (4) of the 1925 Act says:
No order made under the principal Act shall be enforceable and no liability shall accrue under any such order whilst the married woman … resides with her husband, and any such order shall cease to have effect if for a period of three months after it is made the married woman continues to reside with her husband.
In other words, the test there is residence.
That provision was considered by the High Court in the case of Evans v. Evans, when it had to consider that Section and apply it to precisely the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman drew to our attention. That was a case where the wife felt that she had a cause of matrimonial complaint against her husband, but it was not possible for her to live under a separate roof. What the parties did was to maintain two separate domestic establishments under the same roof within the same premises where they

had been living before. In those circumstances the court held that they were still residing together, and, therefore, the wife could not enforce her order.
It was to that decision and those circumstances that the Davies Committee directed its attention when it recommended that the wording should be changed into the form in which it stands in the Bill and which reads:
Where a matrimonial or interim order is made while the parties to the marriage … are cohabiting …".
The reason which the Davies Committee gave for that change is to be found on page 36 of its Report. It states:
This is a change from the existing provision "—
in the Section which I have just read—
which refers to the spouses residing together and not to their cohabiting; the new provision is designed to avoid the cases of hardship which arise when a wife wishes to leave but cannot do so because she cannot find other accommodation and therefore sets up a separate household in the matrimonial home—a situation which was held in Evans v. Evans … to amount to residing together.
Then the Report deals with the difference of opinion by one member of the Committee. It continues:
The rest of the members therefore thought it advisable that the same expression should be used in Clause 7 (1) as in Clause 7 (2), and, since 'cohabitation' is clearly right in the context of Clause 7 (2), preferred the wording of the Clause as drafted.
So that if one accepts, as I do, the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the wording in the Clause has met the problem and has been expressly designed to meet it.
The word "cohabit" is one which the law understands perfectly well. I tried to analyse the situation in Committee, and perhaps I could repeat it. There is, first of all, what the law knows as the concept of people residing together. That merely means that they are living under the same roof—it may be that they are living in two quite separate house holds, but they are still residing together. The second concept is that of cohabitation where they are living together as best they may under their domestic circumstances, on terms of husband and wife but not necessarily involving sexual intercourse one with the other. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that factor may be affected by such considerations as the age of the


parties. Their state of health and various other matters can affect that.
The third stage is when they are living together, cohabiting, on terms of sexual intercourse. As I say, the word "cohabit" is well-known to the law. It has been judicially interpreted and therefore we feel that it is the right word in these circumstances.
5.15 p.m.
I feel difficulty about putting in the phrase suggested in the Amendment
residing together as man and wife.
Either that means the same as cohabiting, in which case it is unnecessary, or it means something different. It is not very clear what it does mean and it may involve shutting out certain circumstances which one would wish to see included. If the phrase
residing together as man and wife
were substituted for the word "cohabiting" it might be alleged that what Parliament was there demanding was cohabitation on terms of sexual intercourse. I know that that is not the intention of the hon. Gentleman, but that is the danger of using a phrase other than that which has been judicially interpreted.
There is also the fact that cohabitation, as I said, means living together as husband and wife, though not necessarily on terms of sexual intercourse, as the parties may best do under the circumstances in which they find themselves. One case was decided in the last century—which has been acted on since—where the spouses were domestic servants in different establishments. They could not live together even under the same roof. They met as best they could, and that was held to be a state of cohabitation. Therefore, it is a phrase, as I have said, which has been judicially determined.
I am prepared to advise the Committee that it is the appropriate phrase in these circumstances. It has the stamp of approval of the Davies Committee, and I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will feel that the Clause as drawn meets the point that he has in mind and that it is right for him to withdraw his Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: I wish to add very little to this controversy, and, indeed,

what I have to say can be rounded off in one point. Surely the expression which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) seeks to substitute for the word "cohabiting" has at least the advantage that the ordinary man and woman in the street understands it. Words like "cohabit", whether they have been judiciously interpreted or not, carry with them a certain terror. They have a technical sound about them and as applied to normal human relationships are apt to appear to the ordinary man and woman in the street as things with a big question mark in front of them.
The ordinary man and woman do not know what cohabitation means. They can guess at it and hint at the sort of meaning that they think the word bears. I put it to the hon. and learned Solicitor-General that if we use words like
residing together as man and wife
they constitute a phrase which carries a perfectly clear concept to the mass of ordinary men and women in the street.
The Bill with which we are concerned is one which concerns ordinary men and women and, broadly speaking, I should have thought that it should be the objective of legislators, in particular of this House, to try, where possible, to make legislation intelligible. When one is dealing with the Finance Acts that is sometimes impossible. Those Acts are only meant to be intelligible to accountants and people of that sort. When we are dealing with a Bill of this sort, which affects the lives of ordinary families we should use a simple phrase instead of a complex and technical one, if it can be easily compassed. So far as I can see, that is the case here.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend will think it necessary to press the matter to a Division if the Solicitor-General still feels unable to accept that point of view, but I do ask him to give it thought and see whether he can change his mind, even at this late stage.

Question put, That "cohabiting" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 133.

Division No. 123.]
AYES
[4.37 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
George, Lady Megan Lloyd


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chapman, Donald
Ginsburg, David


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chetwynd, George
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Awbery, Stan
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gourlay, Harry


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grey, Charles


Benson, Sir George
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil(Colne Valley)


Blyton, William
Deer, George
Hannan, William


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics. S.W.)
Delargy, Hugh
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Boyden, James
Driberg, Tom
Hayman, F. H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Healey, Dennis


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fitch, Alan
Holman, Percy


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Eric
Houghton, Douglas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Howell, Charles A.


Callaghan, James
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)




Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, C. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, A. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, Thomas
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Jeger, George
Owen, Will
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Page, Graham
Swingler, Stephen


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.
Symonds, J B.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Kelley, Richard
Peart, Frederick
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pentland, Norman
Thornton, Ernest


King, Dr. Horace
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur
Warbey, William


Lipton, Marcus
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Loughlin, Charles
Rankin, John
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Redhead, E. C.
White, Mrs. Eirene


McCann, John
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Whitlock, William


MacColl, James
Ross, William
Wilkins, W. A.


McInnes, James
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mackie, John
Short, Edward
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mahon, Simon
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Woof, Robert


Manuel, A. C.
Skeffington, Arthur
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mendelson, J. J.
Slater Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Millan, Bruce
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)



Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moody, A. S.
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Rogers


Mort, D. L.
Steele, Thomas





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Freeth, Denzil
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Aitken, W. T.
Gammans, Lady
Marlowe, Anthony


Allason, James
Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Goodhew, Victor
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Arbuthnot, John
Gower, Raymond
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Barter, John
Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray


Batsford, Brian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Grimond, J.
Mills, Stratton


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grimston, Sir Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morgan, William


Berkeley, Humphry
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholson, Sir Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Michael


Bingham, R. M.
Hendry, Forbes
Nugent, Sir Richard


Black, Sir Cyril
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Bossom, Clive
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Box, Donald
Hooking, Philip N.
Peel, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Brewis, John
Holt, Arthur
Peyton, John


Brooman-White, R.
Hopkins, Alan
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pitman, I. J.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitt, Miss Edith


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pott, Percivall


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, J. Enoch


Cary, Sir Robert
James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Prior, J. M. L.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jennings, J. C.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ramsden, James


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees, Hugh


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, David


Corfield, F. V.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Robertson, Sir David


Costain, A. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Coulson, J. M.
Kershaw, Anthony
Robson Brown, Sir William


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Lagden, Godfrey
Roots, William


Critchley, Julian
Leavey, J, A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Ronald


Cunningham, Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lilley, F. J. P.
Sharples, Richard


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Shaw, M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Peter


Eden, John
MacArthur, Ian
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Elliott, R. W.
McLaren, Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stodart, J. A.


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Finlay, Graeme
McMaster, Stanley R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
Tapsell, Peter




Teeling, William
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Temple, John M.
Vane, W. M. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Woodnutt, Mark


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin.
Wade, Donald
Woollam, John


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Turner, Colin
Watts, James



Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Webster, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Whitelaw, William
Mr. Bryan and




Mr. Chichester-Clark

Division No. 124.]
AYES
[5.21 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pitman, I. J.


Aitken, W. T.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pitt, Miss Edith


Allason, James
Hendry, Forbes
Pott, Percivall


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Powell, J. Enoch


Arbuthnot, John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Barter, John
Hocking, Philip N.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Batsford, Brian
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, James


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hopkins, Alan
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Hornby, R. P.
Rees, Hugh


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Renton, David


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Howard, Hon. C. R. (St. Ives)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Berkeley, Humphry
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Robertson, Sir David


Bingham, R. M.
Iremonger, T. L.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
James, David
Roots, William


Black, Sir Cyril
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bossom, Clive
Jennings, J. C.
Russell, Ronald


Bourne-Arton, A.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Box, Donald
Johnson, Eric (Buckley)
Sharples, Richard


Boyle, Sir Edward
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Shaw, M.


Brewis, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Bryan, Paul
Kershaw, Anthony
Smithers, Peter


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Lagden, Godfrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Leavey, J. A.
Speir, Rupert


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Legge-Bourke, Major Sir Harry
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cary, Sir Robert
Lilley, F. J. P.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Channon, H. P. G.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Longbottom, Charles
Tapsell, Peter


Cooke, Robert
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooper, A. E.
Loveys, Waiter H.
Teeling, William


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Temple, John M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Corfield, F. V.
McLaren, Martin
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Costain, A. P.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Coulson, J. M.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Craddock, Sir George Beresford
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Critchley, Julian
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maddan, Martin
Turner, Colin


Cunningham, Knox
Maginnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Currie, G. B. H.
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Dalkeith, Earl of
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Marten, Neil
Vaugnan-Morgan, Sir John


Duncan, Sir James
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Duthie, Sir William
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Eden, John
Mawby, Ray
Wade, Donald


Elliott, R. W.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Emery, Peter
Mills, Stratton
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Watts, James


Finlay, Graeme
Morgan, William
Webster, David


Fisher, Nigel
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Noble, Michael
Whitelaw, William


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Nugent, Sir Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Freeth, Denzil
Page, John (Harrow. West)
Wise, A. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Page, Graham
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Gower, Raymond
Partridge, E.
Woodnutt, Mark


Green, Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Woollam, John


Gresham Cooke, R.
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Grimond, J.
Percival, Ian
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grimston, Sir Robert
Peyton, John



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. Brooman-White and


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Mr. Gibson-Watt.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Benson, Sir George
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Ainsley, William
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blyton, William
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Callaghan, James


Awbery, Stan
Boyden, James
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Bacon, Miss Alice
Braddock, Mrs. E. M,
Chetwynd, George


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cronin, John




Crosland, Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
King, Dr. Horace
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Deer, Geoorge
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, Edward


Delargly, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McCann, John
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fitch, Alan
McInnes, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Steele, Thomas


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mahon, Simon
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Manuel, A. C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Ginsburg, David
Marsh, Richard
Swingler, Stephen


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Mason, Roy
Sylvester, George


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, R. J.
Symonds, J. B.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mendelson, J. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Grey, Charles
Millan, Bruce
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Griffiths, W (Exchange)
Moody, A. S.
Thornton, Ernest


Hannan, William
Mort, D. L.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oliver, G. H.
Warbey, William


Hayman, F. H.
Oram, A. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Healey, Denis
Owen, Will
Wheeldon, W. E.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitlock, William


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilkins, W. A.


Holman, Percy
Peart, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John
Zilliacus, K.


Jeger, George
Redhead, E. C,



Jones Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Lawson and Mr. Howell.

5.30 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 11, line 17, after "apply", to insert:
when the order is made for a cause or complaint mentioned in paragraphs (h) or (i) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act. or
I recall the learned Solicitor-General saying in Committee that his mind would remain open. So far as I can see, it has remained open since the Committee stage but has now been obstinately closed. I can only hope that it is still ajar and that perhaps the Solicitor-General is waiting until I move this Amendment to show how sympathetic he is on certain parts of this Bill.
In moving this Amendment, I might adduce the arguments which I adduced in Committee on a similar Amendment, but I hope that the Solicitor-General has observed, as I am sure he has, that this Amendment has been considerably modified. It gives the court the right to direct otherwise if it thinks fit; in other words, instead of this automatically taking place, as I asked for in Committee, the court can make the decision. I hope this will remove the fears which the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General expressed in Committee.
This Bill is a very important one. It is concerned with the matrimonial problems of those unfortunate couples who have failed to make a success of their marriage. It will be recalled that in the Second Reading debate hon. Members on both sides of the House emphasised the importance of trying to save the marriage and effecting a reconciliation between husband and wife. Indeed, it was said time after time that that should surely be our primary objective. In my opinion, this Bill offers the opportunity of a certain reconciliation in families where the bitterness which may perhaps stem from adultery has not yet developed. Quite frankly, I was hoping to see a Government Amendment along the lines which I indicated in Committee.
The most interesting debates which we have had have been devoted to details of maintenance, the enforcement of maintenance and to the tidy disposal of the unhappy children of the marriage. Let us not forget that, in dealing with this matter of the question of unhappy marriages, the end product of an unhappy marriage may indeed be tragic. As we know, the psychiatrists say so many unstable adults are the products of unhappy marriages. When I plead for reconciliation, I am pleading not


only for reconciliation between husband and wife but also for a chance for the unhappy children, whose future is quite unpredictable after their parents have separated.
Despite the pious speeches made on Second Reading, nothing has been done in this Bill to make provision for reconciliation. The Royal Commission quite rightly said that no formal pattern of reconciliation agencies should be defined, and I believe that that is right. I believe that there is more chance of saving a marriage in the first place if the husband and wife are given the opportunity of working out a way of life which is agreeable to both, without the intervention of outsiders, whoever they may be.
I should not like it to be thought that I underestimate the importance of the work of the Marriage Guidance Council, the probation officers and all those fine men and women who devote their lives to trying to help in this difficult problem, but, nevertheless, I think that everybody in the House will agree that marriage is such a personal and intimate problem that it is more likely that there will be harmony in the home if husband and wife can come together without interference and decide these issues themselves.
The Marriage Guidance Council has told us that the cause of the breakdown of so many marriages can be traced to quarrels over money. People may have their minor quarrels, in the first place, causing irritation, and finally these small quarrels flare up into what is often described as "a flaming row". It is a fact that, although I am not suggesting that all wives are thrifty, so often a man fails to give his wife sufficient money to maintain the home, and so finally she is compelled to obtain a maintenance order. As a woman's happiness is closely bound up with her home and her children, we may assume that no woman goes for a maintenance order lightly. In my opinion, most wives will tolerate quite a lot, and will try to manage with very small amounts of money rather than endanger the home and jeopardise the future of their children.
Finally, married perhaps to a man who may have been charming but feckless, who spends too much money on drink or horses or dogs—I was trying to think

what the other vices were, but in this place one has no time to acquire the vices—the woman, who has been held for many years by his charm, finds that her position is impossible and has to secure a maintenance order. This Bill, as the learned Solicitor-General has so carefully explained to us now, differs from previous Bills. Under previous Acts, a woman had to leave the home. Now, because of the case of Evans v. Evans, it has been decided that a woman and her husband can live in the same house, despite the fact that a maintenance order has been secured.
I ask the House to picture the conditions. In this great capital of ours—and I believe that there are 10 million people in London and Greater London—there are thousands who are living either in one room, two rooms or three rooms. Under this Bill, husband and wife, despite the fact that they have such limited accommodation, are nevertheless to be allowed to establish two homes. I listened to the learned Solicitor-General very carefully, especially when he said that it would be possible for this to take place even in the case of a family living in one room. It is quite possible for enormous irritation to be engendered in a one-room home. It is also possible to put a partition across the room. Under this Bill, it will be possible to have two separate homes, with husband and wife living on either side of a partition in cases in which the wife has obtained a maintenance order. That is the picture I should like the House to envisage.
The difference between conditions today and previously is that the husband and wife will have ample opportunity of meeting each other. They will be under the same roof. Indeed, they may be living in adjacent rooms, and they are to be placed in this astonishing position in which, where the wife has obtained a maintenance order and they are separated by the law, they are meeting probably every morning. Quite possibly, there may even be a door between the adjoining rooms, with the couple living on each side of the partition. Although that seems a most curious arrangement, nevertheless it will be the law.
There is, at least, one advantage; there may be a much greater opportunity for reconciliation. Instead of these two


people living under different roofs, they will possibly see each other every day. I am dealing only with cases in which the man has failed to support the wife, in which he may be charming but feckless. He may make overtures to his wife and she, anxious to build the family again and bring her children together, may relent, and full cohabitation may take place; or, to use the Solicitor-General's words, cohabitation with sexual relations may take place.
Full cohabitation having been established, in three months' time the order ceases to have effect. Having established a home, brought the children back and tried to do her best to maintain harmony, the wife finds that the order ceases to have effect. But within a few weeks, trouble may recommence because of the man's inability to handle the finances of the home. The Royal Commission considered these problems over a period of years, whereas we have taken only a period of hours. The Royal Commission supported my point of view. My hon. Friend quoted from its Report, in which it said that in these cases, where there is full cohabitation, the order should still be preserved.
The Solicitor-General understands these problems so well and has had so much experience of them that I find it difficult to understand why he does not appreciate that here is an opportunity to stabilise the marriage. Our primary objective in the Bill should be to stabilise these marriages. If the two have come together and, over a period, as a result of the working of the order, it has been possible for them to live happily together, surely we should be utterly stupid to recreate the conditions which separated them. Give them a chance for a time, a year or two, and let the court decide; my Amendment permits the court to take this decision.
In Committee the Solicitor-General said that if he did as I suggested it would mean asking the court to fix a housekeeping allowance. I submit that that is not the case. In most cases, the husband will have the lion's share of the wages. In the ordinary working man's home a housekeeping allowance means that the wife is allowed so much money and from it she often pays the rent, and she will certainly pay for the meals for her husband and children and often for the gas and electricity. She

often pays all the running expenses of the household. Sometimes there may be different arrangements; the husband may pay the rent and the gas and electricity bills. But often a housekeeping allowance means an allowance used for the overall expenses of the home. When the Solicitor-General said in Committee that this would mean asking the court to fix a housekeeping allowance, he was wrong. What I am asking is that the order should remain in force so that at least the wife knows that she has some money for her own maintenance and that of the children.
I agree that financially it may be rather a curious arrangement, but we are not trying to make tidy arrangements as to how the finances will be used. We are trying to ensure that the stabilised marriage lasts as long as possible. Under the conditions which I propose, the wife will at least he sure of a certain amount of money for herself—an assurance which she did not have before the order. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General to reconsider this matter, because there is the safeguard that the court can decide otherwise. The court can listen to the case, take all these various considerations into account and decide whether it is advisable for these conditions to continue.
I plead sincerely for this Amendment. What we decide in the next quarter-of-an-hour will affect hundreds of thousands of poor, helpless people and their children. This is the only chance to effect a reconciliation in so many homes. If it fails and the husband and wife part, we have no responsibility for that, but we are responsible at the moment for giving the husband and wife who have parted a chance to come together again, to bring their children into the home again and to see whether they can maintain this harmony for a little longer until new financial arrangements are made between them.

5.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): As the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) knows, the principle of this Amendment was discussed at all stages in another place and thoroughly in Standing Committee. I do not resent a further opportunity to discuss it, because it is a matter of some substance. In concluding the debate in


Committee, I said that we would look at the matter again, but the right hon. Lady will recall that I gave her little hope to think that we should reach a different conclusion. I assure her that my words were not a formality and that we have not merely waited for her to put down the same or a slightly modified Amendment, and for it to be rejected. We have looked at the matter again. I regret to tell her that we are still of the opinion that the Amendment is unacceptable.
Two separate reasons have been advanced for the Amendment at various stages of the Bill. Unless I misunderstand her, the right hon. Lady says that the wife should not depend on the whim of her husband for her housekeeping allowance and that the court should divide the income between husband and wife and fix a housekeeping allowance.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. The Amendment has nothing to do with the court dividing the man's wages to provide a housekeeping allowance. It is quite clear. It would provide that, the order having been made and the man and wife having come together again, the order as it stands should be allowed to remain in operation so that the marriage may be stabilised. This would continue until some time in the future, when the woman said, "I can trust him and this order can cease." I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that I am asking the court to divide the income. I have not suggested that the husband and wife should go to court to ask for his wages to be divided and for one-half to be used as housekeeping allowance.

Mr. Vosper: I did not say that, but in effect that is what would happen. This is the difficulty which faced the Royal Commission and the Davies Committee when they considered it. Perhaps I exaggerated what the right hon. Lady said, but what I have said was the intention of some of her hon. Friends and of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in Committee. My hon. Friend said that he thought that there were cases of hardship in which the parties would not be able to leave the house and in which reconciliation might be contemplated but could not

take place because of this bar. I accept that the right hon. Lady possibly does not want to go further than that.
I thought in Committee that insufficient attention had been paid to the alleviation under the Bill of the Evans v. Evans decision, which was that persons could not live under the same roof and receive maintenance. Both the right hon. Lady in the Amendment and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) on another Amendment have noted that a considerable advance is made in this connection over the existing law.
I do not want to cover again the ground covered by my hon. and learned Friend on an earlier Amendment as to what is now possible under the terms of the Bill, but possibilities are now available which were not available prior to the production of the Bill. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in another place spoke of the possibility of dividing a room so that the order may remain in force. Great opportunity exists for the parties to satisfy the courts that cohabitation is not taking place, even though they are residing together under the same roof.
The right hon. Lady has said that this will not meet all the cases she has in mind. She suggests that there will still be cases of hardship because of accommodation difficulties and cases where reconcilation is desired and that therefore, the Government must go further and accept an Amendment on these lines, under which the question is placed before the court under this proposal.
That is the point which we have examined, both in another place and between the Committee stage and this stage of the Bill. It was again a point which worried the Royal Commission, certainly the Davies Committee. The right hon. Lady did not say that the Davies Committee did not feel able to accept this proposal of the Royal Commission, although it accepted the earlier one about people residing under the same roof. Sir Frederick Burrows in the minority report of the Royal Commission made the point, which presumably convinced the Davies Committee that this proposal could not be effected, that to accept the proposal would in effect be the equivalent of making a housekeeping allowance.
I realise that the right hon. Lady says that she does not believe that to be true, but it is a fact. If the court is to fix a maintenance allowance and allow the parties to cohabit together, it becomes the equivalent, or the near equivalent, of a housekeeping allowance. That is what worries us and makes the Amendment unacceptable. Once that is done, even if the principle was accepted, it would be accompanied by all the machinery of enforcement, including the possibility of a wife sending her husband to prison under the enforcement provisions of the Bill. It would also involve all the provisions relating to maintenance and attachment of earnings under the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, and would therefore bring the employer into what is in fact a domestic matter between husband and wife.
Therefore, the difficulty of accepting the right hon. Lady's point, well though it was put and acceptable though it may be to many people, is that the court would be empowered to fix a housekeeping allowance, or the equivalent of a housekeeping allowance, between husband and wife.
In Committee the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Howell) suggested, as the right hon. Lady has done, that this is not a housekeeping allowance because of the position of the husband. However, I think that that is a position which would make the task of the courts even more difficult. I do not think that one can escape the fact that the courts would be put in an invidious position if they had to do this. They would be interfering in a domestic arrangement between husband and wife.
The right hon. Lady at one stage rather understood that the High Court had a different power in this connection, but my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General made it clear that the High Court do not enforce orders where the parties cohabit. Since the Committee stage I have inquired to see whether there are any exceptions to that, and I can trace no case whatsoever where an order has been enforced as a result of a High Court action when the parties are cohabiting. Therefore, the law under the Bill is in step with the practice of the High Court.
I realise that this is a matter of considerable social policy, which has been discussed in the House on a previous occasion and rejected, but I do not think that this Measure is a vehicle whereby one could make this very considerable change. The right hon. Lady said that it affected hundreds of thousands of families. I beg to differ on that point, but, if it does, it makes it all the more a matter which should not be discussed on what is a matrimonial Bill. It should be discussed on another issue of social policy.

Mr. Abse: I am happy that on this occasion I can support my Front Bench. I do so very readily. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government. What they are suggesting is that they are prepared to encourage the parties to remain apart.
The whole object of the Amendment is to ensure that there will be no deterrent to reconciliation. The parties have gone to court and the woman has obtained an order against her husband for neglect to maintain. There is no difficulty about the amount being fixed. It is fixed every day in courts up and down the land, and it is done when a husband has neglected to maintain his wife and family. A wife does not go to court, in my experience, unless she has had a prolonged period of deprivation and has suffered greatly because there has been a long pattern of conduct on the part of the husband, which shows that through fecklessness or gambling he is not supporting his wife. The order has been obtained and there has been, very often for the first time, a ventilation of the grievances in court.
I regard the ventilation of the grievances as being of great importance. My experience is that it is sometimes wrong to endeavour to effect a reconciliation before the catharsis has taken place inside the court. This is the experience of very shrewd magistrates and magistrates' clerks, who very often find in practice that, after the pent-up aggression and grievances of parties who have lived together for years is released, solicitors on either side, or the parties themselves, are, oddly enough, able to come together.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) has not gone so far as to include matters concerning adultery, and so on. She has very properly limited it to neglect to


maintain. Therefore, we are dealing with a position where the parties could leave the courts and go back together, having for the first time released their aggression one towards the other. In my experience, this is the best time for the parties to come together. If the wife has been advised by her solicitor, "Whatever you do, do not cohabit with him", a complete obstacle is being placed in the way of reconciliation. A solicitor is bound to advise her and tell her what the law is.
If a woman has already gone through many difficulties over many years before she goes to court, even if her emotions tell her to effect a reconciliation can she be expected when she has children to do so when she knows that to cohabit is to end the order?
This may not be the ideal way to get over this difficulty, but a very legalistic approach has been given from the Government Front Bench. This is just another instance of what I said on Second Reading, that this is a Bill the machinery of which is so concerned and preoccupied with perfecting severance of marriage that it does not give any attention to the possibilities of reconciliation.

Sir F. Soskice: My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) have made perfectly obvious what their purpose is. They want to promote reconciliations instead of allowing a barrier to remain which will prevent reconciliations taking effect. My right hon. Friend has tabled her Amendment to the proviso to Clause 7 (1).
The Joint Under-Secretary answered by saying in effect that my right hon. Friend in tabling her Amendment to this part of the. Bill did not achieve her objective. Does he accept the purpose which she has in mind as being a desirable purpose? The purpose is simply this. Where parties have come apart, whether they are residing in the same house at the time when the order is made or whether they are no longer residing in the same house, they should not lose the order if they become reconciled and, in consequence of becoming reconciled, resume the full relationships of husband and wife. That is what my right hon.

Friend wants to achieve, and I should have thought that the Minister could not deny that that is a desirable objective. If we can achieve that objective, surely we ought to achieve it, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool.
6.0 p.m.
I am sure that the Minister will agree with me—and perhaps he will take the advice of the hon. and learned SolicitorGeneral—that my right hon. Friend's objective could easily be accomplished if her Amendment were to be transferred to the end of subsection (2) of Clause 7. That would mean that the consequence of a resumption of cohabitation would not be to put an end to such an order as is contemplated in paragraphs (h) and (i) of Clause 1 (1). In other words, if a maintenance order is made and the two parties are apart, whether still living at the same address or at different addresses, that maintenance order should not come to an end once cohabitation is resumed.
If my right hon. Friend's Amendment were transferred to Clause 7 (2) it would do what she wants, and if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, thought it appropriate to accept it, I would certainly offer to hand in a manuscript Amendment which would do what I think my right hon. Friend wants to have done, and what she so clearly explained as her purpose. I do not know whether the Minister would be prepared to consider that—if the Chair would accept a manuscript Amendment. Subject to the advice that the Solicitor-General gives to the Minister, I believe that that would do what my right hon. Friend wants. I should like to have an answer on that. I could quickly write down what I hope would be the appropriate manuscript Amendment, subject always, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to your guidance and your Ruling on the matter.

Mr. Vosper: I want to make it quite clear that I do not resist the Amendment on a technical defect. There may be a technical defect—I do not know. I resist it, as I have always done, and as my noble Friend did in another place, because of the principle involved. It is a matter of social policy. The Davies Committee did not recommend, nor did the Government accept, that the order should remain in force when the parties


are cohabiting. That is the objection to the acceptance of this or any similar Amendment.
The Amendment is quite a reasonable one, bearing in mind what the right hon. Lady has in mind, but it does differ from a principle that has been thoroughly debated. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said. and I also listened with great interest to his Second Reading speech, but my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General then made it clear that the Bill is not a measure for reconciliation. It has a limited purpose and, because it has a limited purpose I do not feel able to accept the great change in social policy that this or any other equivalent Amendment would make.

Mr. Fletcher: I press the Government to consider the solution propounded by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Bill does not purport to be a reconciliation Measure. We know that that is so. It purports to be a Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Bill. Surely, however, the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Office are interested in reconciliation, and are concerned that this Bill should not make reconciliation more difficult.
Our criticism of the Government's attitude both now and in Committee is that it is making the reconciliation of a married couple more difficult. That is a very serious charge, and it is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say in reply that this does not purport to be a reconciliation Measure. Whatever it purports to be, it purports to deal with married couples who have matrimonial difficulties, who are not seeking to put an end to the marriage but who are entitled to some matrimonial relief short of a divorce.
On that hypothesis, the Government must surely be interested in reconciliation and in doing all it can to ensure that those marriages that have not completely broken down but in which some difficulty—perhaps temporary—has arisen, should be restored to family unity. I think that this present Amendment is the most serious one that we have discussed today, and what astounds us on this side is that the Government, by their attitude of abject negation, are

making reconciliation more difficult, and are, in fact, driving parties apart who, ex hypothesi, do not wish to separate.
Let me restate the case. There is a difference between husband and wife. A wife has a legitimate grievance, because her husband has failed to pay her proper maintenance within the language of Clause 1 (1, h). Her ground for matrimonial relief is not adultery, it is not cruelty in that the husband is suffering from venereal disease, or is an habitual drunkard, or a drug addict, or has compelled his wife to submit herself to prostitution. We are not dealing with all that class of very serious matrimonial offences, in which totally different considerations arise.
We are deliberately confining this Amendment to the very limited class of case in which it might well be said that although the husband is at fault he has not committed some mortal sin, he has not outraged society—done something that puts permanently asunder the bonds of matrimony. What he has done is to give the wife a legitimate right to go to court on the ground that her husband has neglected to provide reasonable maintenance, not only for her but for the children.
Something has been said about procedure in the High Court and the law in the High Court, and it is important that we should appreciate this. We will come to the practice in a moment, but the law in the High Court—and I am sure that the learned Solicitor-General will not hesitate to interrupt me if I am wrong—is that, in similar circumstances, if a wife proves that her husband has wilfully neglected to provide her with reasonable maintenance she is entitled to get an order from the High Court for maintenance and, as a matter of law, to enforce it, although she continues to live with her husband, to reside with him and to cohabitate with him. That is the law.
The Joint Under-Secretary says that there may be a different practice; that there are cases in which the High Court may not enforce the law as it is. In this Amendment we are dealing with the law, not with the practice, and we are deliberately providing that the magistrates can have a discretion. We therefore say that in order to remove not only what is a social justice itself but a degree of social discrimination between


the poorer sections of the community who go to the magistrates' courts and the richer sections of the community who go to the High Court, the law should be put on the same basis here as the law in the High Court, and that the magistrates' courts should have the same rights in the matter.
When it comes to the practice, the magistrates' court may well decide that it will follow the practice of the High Court, and will apply the law only in circumstances similar to those in which the High Court applies it. We are not making it obligatory. We suggest that this should be a matter of discretion.
I should like the learned Solicitor-General to look at the precise nature, not only of the Amendment but also of the alternative form suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend, and in order that it may be appreciated perhaps I had better read it out. The alternative form would read: Page 11, line 33, [Clause 7], at end add:
except in the case of an order made under paragraphs (h) or (i) of subsection (I) of section one of this Act.
That would make it abundantly clear what we are aiming at. I would again invite the Solicitor-General to look at the framework—

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry; I did not intend to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in mid-sentence. I wanted to make it clear, as I understand it, that if it comes in subsection (2) of Clause 7 it removes the discretion from the court.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to remove the discretion. I am anxious to retain the words:
unless the court in making the order directs otherwise,
in which case it would read at the end of line 33:
except, unless the court in making the order directs otherwise, in the case of an order made under paragraphs (h) or (i) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act.
It will be seen that the framework of Clause 7 is that, first of all, there is the general position for the suspension or cessation of maintenance orders where cohabitation is resumed. Then there is a very important proviso to that general provision. It is already recognised in the Bill itself that, although the main

operation of a matrimonial order should be suspended in the event of cohabitation, certain parts of the order should remain operative notwithstanding cohabitation or resumption of cohabitation—for example, that part of the order dealing with the committing of a child to the legal custody of a local authority.
That will remain operative, and quite properly, though I suppose there could be an argument about that. It could be said, "If cohabitation has been resumed, why should a child or the children of the marriage still be in the legal custody of the local authority? Why should they not return home?" That could well be argued. But we do not argue it because we think that, on balance, the interests of the child are probably best looked after if that part of the order remains operative. As a corollary to that, that part of the order which provides for the payment of maintenance in respect of the child remains operative, notwithstanding cohabitation. That again might be argued.
But I come back to the main point as put so forcibly by my right hon. Friend. In the circumstances which we are envisaging, where a wife has obtained an order on the ground of neglect, and where she is still living, as in a great many cases she will be, in the matrimonial home, either cohabiting fully or partly, then if this Bill stands as it is now, there will be a premium on the wife being driven to go away and find some other accommodation, difficult though that may be, whereas if the Amendment which we seek to make is accepted there will be every inducement on the parties to come together.
6.15 p.m.
I am prepared to ignore the argument that this is in effect giving the court power to fix a housekeeping allowance. I thought that was rather an academic argument. The court will have a discretion in these cases. If the court comes to the conclusion that that is what it is, it will not make an order. The court will be entitled to make an order only if there has been wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance, and that is a totally different set of circumstances from some argument as to what is the proper housekeeping allowance.
I believe that if this Clause is amended as we suggest, there will not be any


difficulty whatever on the part of the courts in administering it and in giving effect to it. I think it will bring the law in the magistrates' courts into line with the law as it now exists in the High Court. The High Court has had no difficulty in adopting the practice and deciding whether it is reasonable or not. I believe that if the Amendment is not accepted it will make reconciliation between the parties much more difficult and will produce a very serious degree of social injustice.

Mr. Charles Royle: May I in a few words add my plea to that of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this Amendment? I do not think that I can agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) when she speaks in terms of hundreds of thousands of cases which come under this heading. I do not think that there are quite so many. But it is a fact that day by day in the courts cases of this kind arise, and we find that after an order for maintenance has been made the parties concerned live under one roof. My right hon. Friend has envisaged the circumstances that may then apply.
I know—indeed, all of us with experience of the lower courts are aware—that this kind of thing goes on. My concern is that an opportunity shall be presented for reconciliation. Our experience certainly teaches us that whilst the parties might be living under one roof for a period after the order has been made, if in the meantime no cohabitation takes place there is a possibility of a complete cleavage sooner or later. One or other of the parties leaves that home and so the end of the marriage is accomplished. As long as they are living under that one roof there is a real opportunity for the marriage to be saved. It is on those grounds that I support the Amendment. In the course of the Second Reading debate on this Bill I expressed the hope that the Bill might ultimately contain something about reconciliation courts, but it has not been found possible to do that. Let us take one step forward by accepting this Amendment.
From both Front Benches we have heard references to the maintenance allowance becoming a housekeeping allowance. Well, who cares? If the maintenance allowance actually becomes the amount of money that the husband

gives to his wife for the basic upkeep of the home, what does it matter? It is a guarantee that she is getting something from him whilst they are living under the same roof.
I know that this subsection does not apply to any provision of the order committing the children into other custody, but I suggest that if this Amendment is accepted there will be no question of the children going elsewhere, and the hope of keeping the whole family together is greatly enhanced. I hope even at this late stage that the Solicitor-General and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will have not second thoughts but fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh thoughts. I hope that they will have those thoughts at this very moment and will make possible a form of reconciliation which would not otherwise exist.

Dr. Summerskill: I think that my hon. Friend suggested that I was exaggerating. Before he concludes, I should like to tell him that I was guilty not of exaggerating but of under-statement. In 1958, 24,000 applications were made in separation and maintenance cases.

Mr. Royle: That may be so. I was making the point that, in her original speech, my right hon. Friend suggested, I thought, that there were hundreds of thousands of cases where, after a separation order, people were living under the same roof.

Sir F. Soskice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In his reply, the Minister indicated, in effect, that the Amendment was so worded as not to achieve what my right hon. Friend desired. In my contribution to the debate I suggested that that difficulty might perhaps be overcome if the Chair were prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment. We have not had an answer from the Government about that, but we have prepared a manuscript Amendment. I wonder whether I might hand it to you now, Sir, and whether, in due course, you would be so good as to rule whether you think it ought to be accepted or not.

Mr. Vosper: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I ought to make it abundantly plain that it is the principle underlying the Amendment, not the wording of it, to which I take exception


The Amendment moved by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) may well be satisfactorily worded if the purpose is accepted, but that is what we do not accept, and, therefore, no variation would be acceptable either.

Mr. Speaker: In view of what the Minister has just said, it would appear

that the House had best arrive at a decision on this Amendment. Accordingly, I would not, in the circumstances, think it right to accept a manuscript Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 203.

Division No. 125.]
AYES
[6.22 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Ainsley, William
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Proctor, W. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Rankin, John


Awbery, Stan
Healey, Denis
Redhead, E. C.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Ross, William


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Howell, Charles A.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Boyden, James
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Short, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hunter, A. E.
Skeffington, Arthur


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Chapman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Steele, Thomas


Chetwynd, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Crosland, Anthony
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Marcus
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Sylvester, George


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McCann, John
Symonds, J. B.


Deer, George
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Driberg, Tom
McInnes, James
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Manuel, A. C.
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marsh, Richard
Wade, Donald


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Fitch, Alan
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Eric
Mendelson, J. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mitchison, G. R.
Whitlock, William


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Moody, A, S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gourlay, Harry
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, Charles
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Pavitt, Laurence
Zilliacus, K.


Grimond, J.
Pentland, Norman



Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Dr. Broughton and Mr. Probert.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Brooman-White, R.
Currie, G. B. H.


Aitken, W. T.
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Allason, James
Bryan, Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Drayson, G. B.


Arbuthnot, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Duncan, Sir James


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Duthie, Sir William


Barter, John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Eden, John


Batsford, Brian
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliott, R. W.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Channon, H. P. G.
Emery, Peter


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cooke, Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Berkeley, Humphry
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Fisher, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bingham, R. M.
Cordie, John
Freeth, Denzil


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Corfield, F. V.
Gammans, Lady


Black, Sir Cyril
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bossom, Clive
Coulson, J. M.
Goodhart, Philip


Bourne-Arton, A.
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Goodhew, Victor


Box, Donald
Critchley, Julian
Gower, Raymond


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Green, Alan


Brewis, John
Cunningham, Knox
Gresham Cooke, R.




Grimston, Sir Robert
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
Shaw, M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Shepherd, William


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswich)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Smithers, Peter


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Matthews, Gordon (Meridon)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hendry, Forbes
Mawby, Ray
Speir, Rupert


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mills, Stratton
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Montgomery, Fergus
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hirst, Geoffrey
Moore, Sir Thomas
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hocking, Philip N.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Holland, Philip
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Hopkins, Alan
Nugent, Sir Richard
Talbot, John E.


Hornby, R. P.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Tapsell, Peter


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Teeling, William


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Page, Graham
Temple, John M.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Partridge, E.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Iremonger, T. L.
Peel, John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


James, David
Percival, Ian
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jennings, J. C.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turner, Colin


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitman, I. J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pitt, Miss Edith
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pott, Percivall
Vane, W. M. F.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Powell, J. Enoch
Vickers, Miss Joan


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, J. M. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lagden, Godfrey
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Leavey, J. A.
Ramsden, James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Legge-Bourke, Maj. Sir Harry
Rawlinson, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
watts, James


Lilley, F. J. P.
Rees, Hugh
Webster, David


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Ronton, David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Longbottom, Charles
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wise, A. R.


Loveys, Walter H.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


MacArthur, Ian
Robertson, Sir David
Woodnutt, Mark


McLaren, Martin
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Woollam, John


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Roots, William
Worsley, Marcus


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard



McMaster, Stanley R.
Russell, Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Noble.


Maddan, Martin
Sharples, Richard

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 11, line 28, at the end, to insert:
or
(iv) such as is mentioned in paragraph (b), (c) or (h) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act, if the order be an interim order".
As the House knows from the discussions which have already taken place, Clause 7 provides that a matrimonial or interim order shall not start to take effect while the parties are cohabiting together. However, the Clause also has a proviso to the effect that that provision shall not take effect unless the court otherwise directs in three cases. My Amendment proposes to add a fourth case, namely, that the fact that the parties continue to cohabit shall not prevent the order coming into force if it is for wife maintenance, husband maintenance or child maintenance and if it is only an interim order.
What I wish to deal with is the simple case where a wife and husband reside together, where the husband has

neglected to maintain the wife and where the wife obtains a maintenance order for herself alone or for herself and her children and has then to seek other accommodation. The very nature of the order, namely, neglect to maintain, shows that she has not funds with which to find other accommodation until payment under the order commences. I appreciate that some of the difficulties have been overcome by the use of the word "cohabit" in the Clause.
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has already indicated that it would be possible for a wife in such circumstances to set up home separately from the husband within the same building, even by dividing a room. That may be possible in some cases, but it may be physically impossible in others. If the court is informed that it is impossible for the wife to set up a separate home within the same building and thereby cease to cohabit and that she has not the funds with which to obtain other accommodation until the


maintenance order takes effect, then I should have thought that it would be right for the court to direct that for a period the order should carry liability for payment of maintenance even though the parties are still residing in the same house and in law may appear to be cohabiting within the same building.
I have restricted the Amendment to the case in which an interim order is made. The House will see that an interim order would be made under Clause 6 if the court, before making a final order on the complaint, adjourns the hearing for a period exceeding one week. It is then able to make an interim order which under Clause 6 (3) would remain in force for a period directed by the court or, at the most, for three months.
The Amendment seeks to give the court a discretion if it finds circumstances, such as those which I have described, in which the wife has not funds to find accommodation until she is paid maintenance. When the court so finds, it should be given discretion to say that for a period maintenance shall be paid for the wife and, if it is an order in respect of the children, for the children as well, even though she is residing in the same house. Under the Amendment the court could not make an order for longer than three months and in many cases it might feel that it ought to make an order for a shorter period. That would leave a discretion with the court.
I say again to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that although he has improved the position of the wife who finds herself in this difficulty by using the word "cohabit" in the Clause there may be physical circumstances in which that phraseology will not help us and in which it is quite impossible for her to show that she is setting up a separate home and thereby ceasing to cohabit in the same building. The court should be given power to deal with that situation temporarily—and the Amendment seeks to deal with it only temporarily—so as to give the wife a financial opportunity to find other accommodation. The nature of the order which she has obtained indicates that she has not finances to find another home for herself and her children. All I ask is that the court should give her time to do that and that she should be paid maintenance during that time.

Mr. Vosper: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is rather more modest in one respect than the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) in that he wishes to limit his proposal to interim orders. He is less modest in another respect in that he wants to extend it to categories of complaint other than wife neglect. I see the point which he is trying to cover by the Amendment, but I think he will understand that, although his Amendment may be limited in one sense, it raises other difficulties. My real objection to it, however, is the argument that I put forward on the last Amendment. It is open to the criticism that here we have an innovation for the first time that the courts will intervene, with all the enforcement machinery, to fix the division of income between husband and wife where the parties are living together.
That is an argument which must be balanced against the argument which my hon. Friend put forward, that his Amendment would help towards reconciliation. It may be that the House eventually will come to the conclusion that the courts should so intervene, with all the enforcement machinery, but I submit that this is not the right occasion on which it should be done. I must, there-, fore advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 8.—(REVOCATION, REVIVAL AND VARIATION OF ORDERS.)

Amendment made: In page 12, line 1, at beginning insert:
Subject to section four of this Act."—[Mr. Vosper.]

Clause 10.—(PARTIES TO COMPLAINT FOR VARIATION, ETC.)

Amendment made: In page 15, line 45, leave out from "the" to "order" in line 1 on page 16 and insert:
powers of the court under subsection (1) of section fifty-five of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, shall be deemed to include power, whatever adjudication the court makes on the complaint, to."—[Mr. Vosper.]

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has not been amended in any substantial way in this House, but it is a matter of importance which has not


attracted the same attention as other Home Office Measures and I consider it important to say a few words about it. The Bill derives from the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce and found expression in a draft Bill considered and approved by the Committee under Mr. Justice Davies. That Bill sought to consolidate the existing law on matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts and to implement some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
The Bill has been amended in only minor respects, except in one particular: that is, that in another place the child of a family was brought within the ambit of the Bill. That is an important social change. In many ways, my right hon. and hon and learned Friends and I regretted that that change could not be made in this House. It was, however, thought wise to make that important change, Which, I am sure, meets with the approval of all hon. Members, at an early stage.
The effect of the Bill is threefold. The rights of husbands and wives to relief are brought into line for the first time, but the maximum maintenance amounts available are raised from £5 to £7 10s. in the case of a spouse and from 30s. to 50s. in the case of a child. The third great change that the Bill introduces is to give now powers to make provision in the interests of the children of the parties concerned and in special circumstances to put them into the care of local authorities. Those are the three major changes which the Bill makes and which will affect most people who have the misfortune to be involved in proceedings under it.
There will be a period of some months before the Bill can come into effect, because many of its provisions require the making of rules. When those rules are complete a public announcement will be made that the Bill is coming into effect. When that happens, it will be open to any party in receipt of a maintenance allowance to make application to the court for the increased maximum that will be available, if such people can justify an increase being made in their allowance. Therefore, the next stage is for the Government to make the rules under the Bill, to bring them into effect

as soon as possible and to make an announcement to that effect at the same time.
I should like to thank once again the Committee of Mr. Justice Davies for their very thorough work on the Bill. For that reason, it has not proved more capable of amendment than might otherwise have been the case. I regret that we have not been able to accede to the three points that were put at all stages of the Bill by hon. and right hon. Members opposite and by one or two of my hon. Friends. These, however, were issues that were thoroughly discussed by the Davies Committee and we felt bound to abide by its decisions. Nevertheless. I am grateful to Members of this House, as well as of another place, who have helped to improve the Bill and ventilate the arguments which needed discussion.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: At the commencement of his remarks, the Joint Under-Secretary rather congratulated himself on the fact that the Bill had not been substantially amended since it was introduced. While I agree with much of the right hon. Gentleman's other remarks, I cannot agree with him in that observation. We on this side consider that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends should have been more accommodating concerning the Amendments to which we attached importance and which we put forward in Committee and again today. We still feel that the right hon. Gentleman's failure to accept those Amendments has deprived him of the opportunity of making considerable improvements in the Bill.
Nevertheless, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said on Second Reading, we on this side welcome the Bill because of the general improvements it introduces. We intend to support it on Third Reading in the same way as we supported it on Second Reading. We welcome it for a number of reasons, which I need not do more than recapitulate briefly.
First, the Bill codifies a branch of the law which was considerably in need of codification. Secondly, it introduces a number of improvements on the lines of the recommendations made by the Davies Committee. Thirdly, it introduces the principle of reciprocity and


fourthly, and not least, and what will be a material consideration to the numerous couples affected by the Bill, it introduces an overdue increase in the maximum allowances that can be made under matrimonial orders. When the Bill operates, magistrates will be able in appropriate cases to make an order for as much as £7 10s. a week for a spouse and as much as £2 10s. a week for each child.
Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary can deal with one point which will interest everybody. He said that it will be necessary to introduce certain rules under the Bill before it comes into operation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that there will not be any undue delay in bringing the Bill into operation. Now that Parliament has decided that these changes should be made and that these increases in allowances under maintenance orders should operate, it is obviously desirable that there should be no undue delay in bringing the Bill into operation. Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm what I understand to be the Government's intention that the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act should be extended to matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts when the Bill comes into operation?

Mr. Vosper: I gladly give the assurance that there will be no delay in bringing the Bill into effect. I am a little reluctant to give a date, because I might thereby disappoint some people. I repeat the assurance, however, that when the date is fixed and the rules are ready, a public announcement will be made, which, I hope, will have the effect of bringing to the notice of those concerned the added provisions of the Bill. Because of the technical nature of the Bill, it has not attracted the publicity which other Measures attract and there may be people who are not aware of its existence. Therefore, we will do whatever we can to bring it to the notice of the public.
I should like to look at the second point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and not give a categorical assurance. Perhaps

it would be better if the hon. Member were to put down a Question, to which I could give an Answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

ESTATE DUTY (GRADUATION OF CHARGE
WHERE BENEFITS FROM COMPANY
SURRENDERED)

Resolved,
That, with a view to providing for the graduation of charges to estate duty where benefits from companies are surrendered, it is expedient to authorise such incidental charges to the duty as may arise from amending the provisions of the Finance Act, 1940, relating to duty in respect of a deceased's benefits from certain companies.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

RETIREMENT ANNUITY PREMIUMS (INCIDENTAL CHARGES)

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise any incidental charge to income tax which may arise from provisions extending the relief for retirement annuity premiums as respects all past years.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

WOLFENDEN REPORT (PART TWO)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take early action upon the recommendations contained in Part Two of the Report of the Wolfenden Committee (Command Paper No. 247 of 1956–57).
I fully appreciate that this subject is one which is distasteful and even repulsive to many people, including no doubt some hon. Members. It is a subject which touches deep and perhaps primitive instincts and which rouses strong emotions, but it is also a topic of some importance not only to the minority who are directly affected by the law but also to the rest of the community. It is for that reason that I chose this subject for debate today.
It is a topic which deserves serious and objective discussion, and I am hopeful that this debate will provide just that. I shall try to direct my own speech to that end and to stick to facts, since in my view the facts themselves make the case for reform. I cannot promise that everything that I shall say will be uncontroversial, but at least I have no wish to say anything which will sharpen controversy, where controversy is acute enough already, or anything which will harden prejudice.
First of all, i should like to clear up in the briefest possible way some of the misconceptions that are common about homosexuality. I am sorry to take time on this, but in the light of things which were said on the last occasion when this subject was debated it is necessary to try to clear the air. It is widely held, for example, that all homosexuals are effeminate, depraved and exhibitionist. This may be true of a very small minority, those of a homopsychopathic character, but, after all, much the same could be said mutatis mutandis of a small minority of heterosexual people. The majority of homosexuals are useful citizens who go about quite unrecognised and unsuspected by most of us.
Homosexuality has existed in all societies from the primitive to the sophisticated and at all periods of history regardless of laws and of the rules of society. It has been condemned, condoned and even encouraged at different

times and in different cultures. As far as I am aware, it has never been suppressed. The incidence of homosexuality is not easy to determine, but the best estimates are that in Britain today about one male in 20 to 25 of the population is an active homosexual. The numbers may be substantially more. They can hardly be less.
They are not confined to any particular social class or professional group. As far as one can discover, they are spread fairly evenly through the population as a whole. There is no evidence whatever, despite widespread belief to the contrary, that homosexuality in this country has increased recently or is increasing. There may be some figures which on a superficial glance might suggest that, but research studies reveal no evidence that it is the case.
Homosexuality is seldom a matter of choice for the individual. I understand that it is largely an involuntary deviation, not hereditary but often due to some emotional factor during childhood. I gather that at birth we all of us possess both homosexual and heterosexual elements in our psychosexual make-up, but environmental conditions and family relationships succeed in attracting most of us in the direction of normality. Nor, according to most medical opinion, an opinion which is shared by the Wolfenden Committee, is homosexuality a disease. Therefore, it is not something which is suitable to medical treatment in the accepted sense of the word. To be fair, however, I should say that there are certain psychiatrists who take the view that there are some types of homosexuality which are a form of neurosis and can be treated by psychotherapy. But I think that it is true to say that the generally accepted view among doctors and sociologists that this is a disability, a deviation from the norm of the same sort of order as is left-handedness or colour blindness.
I have no wish to suggest that I regard homosexuality as a desirable way of life. It is in my view undesirable, for reasons which I will tell the House. It is undesirable because it leads so often to unhappiness, to loneliness and to frustration, because it entails in many cases heavy burdens of guilt and shame on those affected by it and because it seldom provides a basis for a stable


emotional relationship. It may also possibly be undesirable on moral grounds because it is a sin, but these are matters on which I am not competent to pass judgment.
Surely all this suggests that these unfortunate people deserve our compassion rather than our contempt, yet we choose to brand them indiscriminately as criminals and to isolate them from the rest of the community. I hope that I am not over-simplifying it—Ihave a great deal to say and I do not want to take too long—when I say that the law states that all homosexual practices constitute a criminal offence. This stems very largely from the notorious Labouchere amendment to the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill of 1885. How this came to be enacted is a most extraordinary story which does not reflect very favourably on the House of Commons at that time.
This new Clause was moved at the Report stage, the penultimate stage before the Royal Assent, of a Bill which was designed for a totally different purpose. There was a procedural wrangle about whether it was in order, but Mr. Speaker of that day said that anything is in order if the House wishes it—hardly a sentiment which I think you, Mr. Speaker, would endorse today. Having got the procedural wrangle out of the way, the new Clause, which made all acts of gross indecency, unspecified, between male persons a criminal offence, was added to the Bill without any debate whatever on the substance of the matter, and the provisions of that Clause were re-enacted under the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, a consolidating Measure.
What is it that the Wolfenden Committee recommends? It made a number of minor recommendations, some of them quite important ones, but I want to direct the attention of the House to what is generally accepted as its main recommendation. It is simply that homosexual acts committed in private by consenting adults shall no longer constitute a criminal offence.
The Committee went further. It made it clear that it defined "consent", and "private" in the same sense, as those words are meant in connection with normal sexual acts, and it played absolutely safe by placing the age at 21

for an adult in this connection. So the Wolfenden Committee proposed no changes whatever in the laws governing public decency. Far from removing any protection from the young that the existing law provides, it did, in fact, actually recommend increased penalties for sexual offences involving young persons in one particular category of case.
Why does the Wolfenden Committee think, and why do I think, too, that the law needs to be changed? I think that there are a number of things amiss with the present law. Perhaps the most important of all is the question of interference with the private acts of adults. I take the view that interference with this sort of conduct by the law can be justified only on very exceptional grounds of public interest. I do not consider that such grounds exist in this case. This matter was argued at great length by the Wolfenden Committee, and, I think, with great cogency. I beg hon. Members who have not read that section of the Report to do so.
Secondly, I do not think that there is either equity or consistency in the administration of the law. So far as I can ascertain, no general guidance has ever been given by the Home Office to chief constables about the administration of this law, and so it is very largely the individual attitude of chief constables to the whole matter of homosexuality that determines how zealously, or otherwise, the police in a given area pursue homosexuals. The risks of being prosecuted for this offence vary enormously from area to area, and once a prosecution has been instituted the sentences vary enormously as imposed by different magistrates and different judges. Indeed, I think that there are few laws which fall more capriciously upon the offender than does this one.
Then there are the unparalleled opportunities for blackmail which are inherent in the law as it stands. This is so obvious that I do not think I need labour the point, except perhaps remind the House that the late Lord Jowitt said, based on his experience when he was Attorney-General, that in 90 per cent. of the blackmail cases that came before him there were some homosexual components.
Then there are the dubious police methods, which I do not want to go into


in detail, to which this law gives rise in certain cases at least. It imposes a very unpleasant burden on the police force and, in my view, a quite unnecessary burden. There is also the question of unenforceability. I think that it is generally accepted that to be respected a law should be readily enforceable, but by their private nature the acts with which this law is concerned cannot—not one in a thousand of them—come to the notice of authority. The prosecutions which take place result from informers, from partners to homosexual acts who turn Queen's Evidence, and from confessions extracted by the police.
Lastly, I submit to the House that many of the most objectionable features of homosexuality stem directly from the criminal stigma that attaches to it through the existence of the law. Of all the countries in Western Europe there is only one other, and that is the Federal German Republic, which takes the same legal view of private homosexual acts as we do in this country. If we were to adopt the Wolfenden recommendations it would bring our law into line with that of France, Italy, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Greece, Spain and Austria. Austria actually changed its law, following some kind of Wolfenden Committee of its own as recently as January of this year. So far as I know, there has been no outbreak of immorality in Austria in recent months as a result of it. Those are the arguments for reform.
I now turn to the arguments commonly advanced against reform. The first is that if we relax the law in any way relating to private acts, homosexuality will spread like a prairie fire, to use the somewhat emotive phrase of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), homosexuals will feel free to proselytise, and young persons in particular will be endangered to a greater extent than at present. Neither of these assertions is provable or disprovable. All that one can say is that nothing of the kind has happened in those countries which have relaxed their law in the direction in which I am pressing this evening.
I know that some hon. Members say that the experience of other countries is not relevant. I always wonder why they say that and why they assume that there is something peculiarly depraved in the British character which suggests that we

should act differently from, say, Sweden, which relaxed this law in 1942 and has noticed no difference at all since then.
On the second point, the question of young persons, all the evidence suggests that the people who normally engage in homosexual acts between adults are not the same people who tend to seduce young persons. The paedophiliac is a rather special type and no relaxation of the law relating to adult acts could have any effect, except possibly a favourable effect, upon the risks to which young persons are subjected.
I must mention, in passing, the very extraordinary argument that is embraced in the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Cheadle. I do not want to misrepresent him. He moves to leave out the words from "House" and to add
is of the opinion that the proposed alterations would largely fail to change the status of homosexuals in society …
If these proposals were accepted their status would be changed from criminal to non-criminal, and I can hardly conceive of a greater change of status than that.
It is also said—and one or two newspapers have taken this line—that to change the law would be to appear, at any rate, to condone and encourage homosexuality. Do we condone and encourage adultery, or Lesbianism, simply because we have failed to make either a criminal offence?
But the main argument adduced against reform is that public opinion is opposed to it, or is not ready for it. What does this mean? Does it mean that we can never make a change in the law until an overwhelming majority of the people demand that change? If that criterion had been adopted in the past we should still be hanging men for stealing sheep, and still chaining lunatics on beds of straw. A Government are entitled to take into account public opinion; they are entitled to take care that they do not act in such a way as to affront the great majority of the nation. But it is frequently the duty of Government to lead and not to follow public opinion, and to do what they know to be right.
In difficult questions like this, what sort of opinion should they consult before acting? I suggest that it should


be the opinion of a reasonable cross-section of the community which has taken the trouble to study the matter intelligently and objectively—and there is no doubt where such opinion lies in this matter. First, I take the members of the Wolfenden Committee. Out of thirteen men and women, described by Sir John Wolfenden as reasonably intelligent people, who began with open minds and spent a fair amount of time assessing the best available evidence, twelve reached the firm conclusion that the law should be changed. I believe that there was no fluke about this. I believe that out of any dozen people who sat down and studied the matter in the same way as the Wolfenden Committee did, on the average ten or eleven would come to the same conclusion.
Then there is the opinion of the Churches, which is to some of us perhaps the most surprising and welcome feature of the debate. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Church Assembly, the Methodist Conference and the Committee set up by the Roman Catholic Church to study the same problems as those studied by the Wolfenden Committee all support the same recommendation.
Editorial opinion is heavily in favour of the recommendation. The Times, the Guardian, the Observer, the Sunday Times, the Daily Mirror, the Star, the New Statesman, the Spectator, and the Economist are all in favour of the Wolfenden recommendations.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I am a member of the Methodist Church. How does my hon. Friend know that these Churches are representing the views of their congregations? What authority have they to speak for other people?

Mr. Robinson: I would be the last person to try to explain what authority the Methodist Conference has; all I am saying is that that Conference passed a resolution in favour of the Wolfenden recommendations. I am trying to stick to the facts, and that is a fact. I am not suggesting that every Methodist is in favour of reform or that every member of the Church of England is in favour. That was a somewhat irrelevant interruption.
On the other side, editorially, we have the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Sketch and,

always in the vanguard of social progress, the Beaverbrook Press.
Medical and sociological opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of changing the law. Incidentally, I should like to refer to the views expressed by two hon. Members on the last occasion when the House discussed this matter. One was an hon. Friend of mine and the other an hon. Member opposite, who are both psychiatrists. They expressed themselves as being against the implementation of the Wolfenden recommendations. I have heard it said that their views are typical of the psychiatric profession. All I would say is that having discussed this matter with many psychiatrists I think that it would be extremely difficult to find any other two who have reached the same conclusion as have the two hon. Members to whom I have referred.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I hope that my hon. Friend will give the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) and myself credit for not claiming to speak on behalf of the medical profession; we were speaking as individual Members of Parliament. We both have experience of psychiatry, and we drew on that experience when we made our speeches. We did not express an opinion of the medical profession. I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we are the only psychiatrists who are not in favour of implementing the Wolfenden recommendations.

Mr. Robinson: I know that my hon. Friend is speaking for himself, as is the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), but their two speeches, taken together, have been represented to me as being psychiatric opinion—and, frankly, they are not. I did not say that they were the only two who opposed the recommendations; I said that we should have to go far to find others.
For the purpose of argument, let us concede the case that mass opinion should be consulted on this issue. I can find no evidence of any overwhelming public opinion in opposition to these recommendations. Two or three popular newspapers conducted straw polls shortly after the Wolfenden Committee reported, and although there was in no case a majority for reform, in one case the numbers were very nearly equal and in the other case they were in the ratio of four to five. There


is some evidence to prove that public opinion has moved in the direction of reform since then.
One always consults one's own postbag in these cases. I have had about seventy or seventy-five letters, three of which were hostile. One was couched in terms of personal abuse with which those who have taken any interest in this subject are all too familiar; a second was from a lady referring me to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible and assuring me that God will punish, and the third, which arrived this morning, was from a gentleman who advocated the compulsory castration of homosexuals and offered his own services.
I hope that the Home Secretary is not going to repeat the excuse which he gave in the earlier debate for inaction in this matter, and say that public opinion is not yet ready for this change. That horse is not a runner. For a Government who want to make this change there is ample and demonstrable public support to justify their action. Almost everyone, and every organ of opinion—except the House of Commons—has by now expressed a view on this subject. I submit that if we are to retain the respect of the nation we cannot for ever emulate the ostrich on matters of social controversy. Any attempt that might be made to prevent the House from coming to a decision tonight would rightly cause us to forfeit the respect of the people whom we are here to represent.
I now come to the terms of my Motion, which I have worded very carefully in order to make its acceptance by the Government as easy as possible. I have not sought to tie them down to the precise recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee, but before the right hon. Gentleman puts his gloss on my Motion I had better say how I interpret it. Action on the Wolfenden recommendations must imply legislative action on the main recommendation. A few of the worst features of the present law could be mitigated, and should have been mitigated before this, by administrative action, but so long as every homosexual act remains a criminal act the basic evils of the present law will remain. By early action I do not mean action in this Session, but those words can only mean action during this Parliament.
I have spoken for longer than I intended, and I will conclude by asking the House this question: has not the time now come to get rid of a law which achieves no discernible public good, which invites blackmail, which causes untold misery and which creates more evils than it can ever hope to eradicate? In the final analysis this is a matter of tolerance and common justice. This country has a great and deserved reputation for tolerance. This House is admired not least for the concern it shows for minorities, and even individuals, who are unjustly treated. It is to those qualities that my Motion is directed, and it is in that spirit that I ask the House to support it.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: Personally, I unreservedly welcome this debate and can at least support what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has said in respect of his choice and the reasons for it. I think that many of us also warmly approve the restrained manner in which he has moved his Motion. I am among those, perhaps a minority, who think in many respects that the more we are compelled to discuss this and the wider the discussion goes the better. I do not see how we can hope to get the right answer without it, and I think that those who grow impatient at what I saw described in one newspaper today as "this interminable discussion" are wrong. I am sure that that is not the right approach.
It is rather instructive to consult, as I have done, some of the public prints and indexes both before the Wolfenden Report and before a certain cause célèbre led to the appointment of that Committee. It is noteworthy that previous to that there had been little or no public discussion or report on this subject. Until lately, the English have cherished a reluctance—which is widely recognised—to talk freely on subjects such as this. Perhaps this national characteristic and this lack of discussion is why we now find ourselves in this difficulty.
If this were an authoritarian régime, the Home Secretary could quietly intimate to the police what his wishes were, or what he thought our wishes were, and that would dispose of the matter. But we are compelled—and we have no other


course—to go by public consent, and that involves discussion. Discussion may not remove—I do not think that it will—a great deal of the fear and prejudice which must and does surround this subject, but it will certainly bring about some changes of mind, not all in the same direction.
I must admit that since I became obliged to get to grips with this subject I have partly changed my mind. Five years ago, before the Report was about to be published, I thought that any change in the law was unthinkable in this respect. Even a year ago I thought it would be most improbable. Today I think that with respect to the imprisonment of the homosexual it is inevitable—eventually. I cannot accept the logic of imprisonment for the homosexual as the last word, and since I cannot accept the creation of a special class in our courts, that means I must also accept that it cannot indefinitely be treated as a criminal offence. I do not say that that is a widely shared experience, or that the change of mind has occurred to others, but even less would I attempt to suggest that those who passionately wish to maintain the law as it stands at all costs and indefinitely have not reasonable grounds for their view.
It simply means that I am no longer able to accept the present law as the past word and to remain so indefinitely. Surely the issue which concerns us now, and all who are concerned with this 'subject, is not so much whether but if there is to be change, how and when, particularly how? That seems to be the most complex social problem which has confronted a Government for a very long time, and I think that it is being dismissed far too lightly by a great many people who should know better.
We have not been greatly assisted by what has been said—and left unsaid—by some of the respectable authorities which have come down in favour of the principal recommendation of the Committee. I think that some have displayed, and are still displaying, quite unwittingly perhaps, a brand of intellectual superiority—I will not say arrogance—which goes little towards solving the real difficulties.
It is not difficult to reach a satisfactory intellectual answer to this problem

—satisfactory to oneself and to a cosy audience. It is far more difficult to face the administrative consequences of any change, work them out and follow them through. To this extent, there has been some over-simplification by some very lofty intellects and a belittling of the poltical problems involved. I do not say that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North, but I do say to him that it is not good enough, in respect of his last remarks, to say what is apparently the right solution as a jurist or sociologist and as a Member of Parliament, and then, because the Government fail td follow it up at once, to accuse them of moral cowardice.
Sir John Wolfenden, whose standing as a sociologist is high with us all, observed with irony last week—and I do not want to take his remarks out of context—that there were four sexual sins and only one was punishable by imprisonment. I am not sure that that remark does him or the report associated with him justice. If all four of the sins alluded to by him were more and more widely recognised and observed as sins, our problems and anxieties would be less.
Some weighty leaders of the Church of England have given their views and support a change in the law. They have said, in effect, that this should cease to be the responsibility of the legislators and should become their responsibility as upholders of the Christian doctrine. That is not an unreasonable point of view, but what is imperative is that, if we remove legal restraint, there should be in readiness, or within reach, a second defence in the medium of moral restraint. This may not be a view which is widely shared, but it seems to me that very little has been done to build up and strengthen that second line of defence upon which so many in favour of this change ask us to put our weight.
That is one of the prime difficulties, and it is not easy. We are told that it is the existence of an illogical and unjust law which weakens the sense of moral restraint. I accept that there is something in that, but in a world in which extra-marital relations have come to be—let me put this moderately—more lightly regarded than at one time, then it is vain to belittle those who fear that homosexuality might also become so regarded. With the moral walls against


the three sins as thin as they are today, it seems to me most natural and reasonable that many people should be reluctant to see the removal of a legal barrier against the fourth. That is the heart of the fear which is very widely felt, and it must be understood by the supporters of this Motion if we are to get anywhere rationally, and understood by a much wider company outside the House.
Administratively, the difficulties in following through the Wolfenden recommendations are great, and I shall not discuss them now, but dwelling upon them ought not to be branded as moral cowardice. We have the problem, for example, of the universities. If one accepted the recommendation that the age of 21 should be the age within the law the universities would be divided—not half and half—but at least divided. For some it would be within the law and for others it would be without the law. There is the problem of the Services which, as many of us know, have profound problems and anxieties in the matters. We even have the problems of the schools. I shall not exaggerate what the indirect consequences might be of what we might do to the law, save only to mention this consequence which I know will occur to anyone, of schoolmasters above the age of 21 accepting the change in the law.
Those are not light considerations, and they are not lightly dismissed in the Wolfenden Report. I repeat that seldom has there been a problem upon which it has been easier to reach an intellectual answer highly satisfactory to oneself, and harder for others to work out the consequences.
Finally, there is the state of public opinion itself to be considered. It is terribly easy to talk nonsense about it, and one always cites public opinion in defence of what one wants to say. I do not propose to do that. Broadly, it seems to me that the more the subject is debated the more the public is likely to see the force of the main Wolfenden recommendations. I make no secret of that, but I think that there will always remain an adamant minority, and perhaps a majority, opposed to a change.
We are dealing with a law which has obtained for 400 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—perhaps I exaggerate the number of years, but at least it has

obtained long enough for me to say that the Motion asks for early action after only four years since the Wolfenden Report. I think that those who are asking for that should be clear about for what they are asking. Is it that the Government should take a lead now and hope that the resistant elements of public opinion will come along with them, or is it that the Government should allow public opinion time and then act?
I feel the strongest reservation about the first, and I cannot accept it. I shall not go into the historical or sociological reasons, but the facts of the Wolfenden Report alone justify a very strong element of public resistance. I quote only one paragraph, paragraph 202, in that connection:
The fact must be faced that there will always be some men whom it is necessary to submit to some form of compulsory detention for the protection of others. Of 1,022 men in prison for homosexual offences in 1954 "—
the last year quoted—
no fewer than 590 (58 per cent.) were involved in offences against boys aged 15 or under
It is no good trying to belittle, and it is not in the interests of those behind the Motion to try to belittle, the fact of public opinion with such a finding as that.
If there is action, it must be in line with the second proposition. I suspect the axiom that it is always the Government's duty, as the hon. Member says, to lead and to expect the public to follow. In many things that is true, but not in all, and not when the Government are laying down a statutory charge and transferring the weight in terms of social and moral responsibility to other people.
I consider that there are three essential preliminaries. The first is the programme of research mentioned in paragraph 216 of the Wolfenden Report. That should be given a further run. One consequence of reading the Wolfenden Report is that one discovers how astonishingly little any of us know about this subject. Secondly, there should be a further process of assisting by discussion and debate, however interminable, those large elements of public opinion which have not yet—and why should they?—got to grips with the subject.


Thirdly, there should be more evidence that those who see with such clarity the distinction between crime and sin in respect of this offence are sharing that doctrine with a wider audience and fortifying it for a change in the law.
Perhaps the most grievous error is to pretend that we are dealing with a self-contained, isolated element of society, now the victim of unjust law. To do him justice, at no time did the hon. Member pretend that that was so. It is proposed to make a change in the law which will have positive physical effects on others, however few, now outside that element—let alone the moral consequences.
One should be specific about the moral consequences, because it is easy to talk vaguely about them. Some believe that the homosexuals' case is that there may be removed the unfair shadow of criminal prosecution. They assume that those concerned would then willingly accept the social consequences. If there are those who believe that, I am bound to say that they totally misread human nature. No man will willingly submit unresistingly to a social stigma, to the consequences of that social moral force. There will follow a change in the law—indeed, there has preceded such a change—a campaign of self-justification. That will follow as day follows night. There will follow an effort to prove that homosexuality—I am not speaking of those who support the Motion, but I know from my knowledge of human nature how this will work out—has its virtues, just as many people today seek to prove that divorce has its virtues.
That does not alter my view that we must eventually change the law, but it strengthens my view that we must prepare for that change. Given those prerequisites, I think that we are entitled to expect a change, and it will come. I cannot see how hon. Members can ask for it to come in the lifetime of this Parliament, for instance. I know that the hon. Member is using the word "early" in that sense, but this is not a matter in which there can be early action in the sense that there is early action with pensions, housing, town planning, licensing laws and similar matters.
I would not attempt to state a term of years because there are too many im-

ponderables, but in terms of the history of this law I would regard something inside a decade as early action. However, I know that in the terms of the Motion and in terms of what its supporters have in mind, that is manifestly not early action. I support the proposal of the Motion in believing that a change must and should come, but I cannot accept the interpretation for the qualifying word "early". Hon. Members supporting the Motion would be well advised to think not just broadly of when, but more closely than many have yet shown signs of doing of how. I think that there is no other way of moving towards what they want.

7.47 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I would not have intervened in this debate had I not been present in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) announced his choice of subject after he had been successful in the Ballot. The reception given to that choice by hon. Members made me feel that it was one's duty to take part in a debate on a subject which is difficult, embarrassing and distasteful.
It is easier for women to make this point: I believe that in considering the subject of male homosexuality a number of men consciously or subconsciously are moved to vehement condemnation by some feeling that they have to assert their own virility in the process. I am not convinced that the most vehement condemnation is necessarily based on a sober study of the facts. All matters of sexual behaviour are apt to arouse strongly subjective emotions. I repeat that sometimes there is a subconscious cause. This is a subject which needs to be considered as objectively a possible.
There is another aspect of the attitude towards homosexual behaviour on the part of at least some men. It is that they may regard heterosexual sin as something not so serious, and they therefore
Compound for sins, they are inclin'd to
By damning those they have no mind to.
As a woman, I find that very difficult to accept. I regard homosexual behaviour as something extremely repugnant and on the few occasions when one has observed evidence—a woman does not, naturally, come in contact with it as much as a man—I have experienced a feeling of abhorrence.
Equally I, as a woman, have the deepest abhorrence of prostitution by women. I am not speaking of extra-marital relationships, in some of which there is a real feeling of concern for the partner in the act. I am speaking of the commercial prostitution of a woman's body for a man's pleasure for a few minutes. I regard that as utterly repugnant. But it is not a criminal offence, and it is not suggested by anyone in this House that it should be made one.
I am simply suggesting that one should try to look at these different types of personal sin as objectively as possible and that one should try before voting on this matter—certainly before speaking on it—to clear one's mind so far as possible of any subjective feelings.
I have carefully read the Wolfenden Report, and such other material as is available to us, and, frankly, I find the subject of homosexual behaviour extremely baffling. The psychiatrists and the medical men are not agreed—as my hon. Friend has said—on its causation or treatment or whether it is in any circumstances curable. It is, therefore, something which one must approach with some diffidence, but I think it certainly something on which one should pay attention to people of intelligence and goodwill who have done their best to study it carefully.
I think also that one is fully entitled to look at the experience in other countries where the general standards of civilised behaviour are not far different from our own. I think it very odd, to say the least—I almost committed the terrible pun of saying "queer"—that we in this country are almost alone among the Western European countries in persisting in regarding that type of behaviour as a criminal offence. That it is something reprehensible is, of course, another matter. But surely it is something to be questioned why we as one country should be different in our attitude from the Nordic countries, the Scandinavian countries and the Latin countries. I find it very difficult to understand why we in Great Britain should take this attitude.
The countries which have altered their law and made this no longer a criminal offence do not report an increase in this type of behaviour, so far as can be ascertained. I have found a tendency to suggest that there is an increase in this

type of behaviour in this country; but I think that objective analysis will show that this matter has been far more freely discussed at the present time and that there is no evidence—from the nature of things there could be no evidence—that there has been an actual increase in such behaviour. Therefore, I do not accept that as an argument at all.
I find it impossible to accept that the changes in the law under the Wolfenden proposals would endanger young people. Were that so, I should be the very last to support my hon. Friend in this matter. Clearly, the corruption of the young is wicked in itself and, if I may say so speaking as a woman, anything which encourages a deviation of this sort can lead to so much unhappiness not only for the person concerned but for any possible partner should he marry later on—some homosexuals do, in fact there are all sorts of degrees of homosexuality—that it should not be condoned.
I cannot believe, from the evidence given in the Wolfenden Report and elsewhere, that this change is likely to have that effect. On the contrary, I think it might conceivably be argued—though I do not attach too much weight to the argument—that by keeping acts with persons under 21 as a criminal offence, the fact that persons were affected by a fear of falling foul of the law might divert their attention to older people with whom they could have relations in legal safety. So I cannot understand the argument of those who say that this change would endanger youth. That is one of the arguments which appears to be based on a misunderstanding or even possibly on a prejudiced judgment.
I do not wish to speak for too long, because I know there are many other hon. Members who desire to take part in this debate, but I should like to make one final comment on the question of public opinion and on what should be the duty of the House where public opinion is uncertain or even where we may feel there is a majority of public opinion unconvinced that a change is required.
There are some circumstances in which one must be very careful indeed not to be in advance of public opinion. One analogy often put forward is that of prohibition in the United States. But that is a danger when we are seeking by legislation to add something to our


criminal code; in other words, when we are making something an offence when public opinion is not satisfied that it should be so regarded, and therefore is liable to flout the law.
The correct analogy in this case would be if we were proposing to make female prostitution a criminal offence. That would be a foolish thing for the House to do because, indubitably, the House would not carry public opinion with it, and the law would be flouted and brought into disrepute. But this is not at all a case where what one is doing is perhaps going a little in advance of public opinion or giving a lead to public opinion in something where the law would be flouted. It would be a change in such a way as to remove an offence from criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, it seems to me that we are faced with a practical and a moral choice in this matter, and I think that the weight of evidence is emphatically on the side of changing the law.
This is a very difficult and complex problem. The treatment of homosexuals is a very difficult and complex matter. In the earlier debate on the subject the Home Secretary said that more knowledge was required, and I agree. But I suggest in all earnestness that to continue to have this type of behaviour regarded as a criminal offence is precisely what makes it so extraordinarily difficult to obtain satisfactory knowledge or provide satisfactory treatment.
One can hardly imagine circumstances which would make it more difficult than those in which a person so affected feels that he is a potential criminal, that he is always in the position where he can be denounced and hunted and subjected to blackmail and so on. I suggest that no one in that position is in an ideal state for possible remedial treatment. It seems to me that we have to treat this matter as objectively as possible and to give every opportunity for a better scientific approach, and that to treat it as a criminal offence is not conducive to the sort of approach which might help to solve this very difficult social problem.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: Having listened to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson)

move the Motion, I feel that he and those who support him will consider my remarks far from enlightened, prudish and quite unfashionable. If he considers them in that light, I nevertheless feel that I shall be in very good company. Possibly his experience of public opinion is unique and quite different from the general experience of hon. Members. Indeed, he seems to have a unique postbag. Possibly that is from people who seek his guidance. His postbag is in my opinion unusual, but I assure him that public opinion in this country is usually, in the long run, fairly accurate and correct, and we should not dismiss it as something not worth bothering about.
Let us consider what the Motion invites us to do. It invites us
to take early action upon the recommendations contained in Part Two
of the Wolfenden Committee's Report, which deals with homosexuality. In my opinion, if we did that, very great harm indeed would be done. Those who support the Motion put great stress on the word "consenting" in the phrase "consenting males". They tell us continually about these consenting males. Have we reached the stage of misguided thinking that we say that, providing two evil people consent, then their actions should be considered legitimate?

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am following the hon. Member's argument, especially his reference to "two evil people". We all know that many women cohabit because they have erotic attachments to each other. Would he take his view further and say that we should send them to prison and make their erotic attachment a criminal offence, too?

Mr. Lagden: With the limited time which we have for this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—it seems to me that to enlarge the debate to include a discussion of female sin, if hon. Members like to call it that, would take up so much time as to be undesirable. If the hon. Member asks me a question which can be answered in a sentence, I will gladly give him an answer, and I will welcome at some time debating this subject fully with him, but I am not prepared to give him a "Yes" or a "No" to his question, which could easily be used against my argument by subsequent speakers.
In my opinion, since time began those who have been put in authority have always been given a duty to see that good is upheld and evil is punished. I suggest to the House that in many ways over the last few years we have been rapidly moving away from that duty. We have rapidly been retreating from the position of seeing that those who do evil and harm are punished. We should not be as lenient as we have been. Especially should people be punished if their actions, which I contend are evil, have physical and mental danger to those with whom they come into contact.
Those of us who have had anything to do with this subject and have seen for ourselves—

Mr. Charles Pannell: Oh.

Mr. Lagden: Yes. Of course, if you have not studied the question at all and know nothing about it, you are not fit to interject.

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. I did not interject. It is the custom of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that hon. Members who are not intervening actively in the debate shall not be insulted as an alibi by an hon. Member who has no further cogent argument.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I appreciate the hon. Member's point of order, but in the rough and tumble of the debate we must not be too sensitive.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: If an hon. Member uses the word "You", does not that mean the Chair? The hon. Member for Horn-church (Mr. Lagden) used the word "You", and I think he should be corrected on that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There again, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Howell) is quite right, but if the occupant of the Chair were always to protest when the word "you" was used incorrectly, there would be far too many interruptions.

Mr. Lagden: I hold your knowledge, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in much greater esteem than that of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), to whom I referred.
Over the last few months hon. Members have been inundated from many sources with literature which, under the cover of stating facts, has in my view endeavoured to influence our opinions and to state the case for the homosexual. In my opinion, all right-thinking people would at best—and I put it at best—think of these homosexuals as people with warped minds who have little self-control. I contend that that is the best that one can say for them. In paragraph 20 of the Wolfenden Committee's Report we read that
according to the psycho-analytical school, a homosexual component exists … in everybody … and … is universal.
That may well be so. That could probably be accepted by most people. But if it is so, it shows how very desirable it is that some self-control and some form of self-discipline should be exercised by us all.

Mr. Richard Marsh: If the hon. Member intends to quote from the Report he should quote it in its context. The Report reads:
homosexual component (sometimes conscious, often not)
If one assumed that it is often not conscious, it would be rather difficult to deal with it by self-control.

Mr. Lagden: I concede the point that if one does not know what one is doing one cannot control it. That is fairly obvious.
Let us consider what the literature has been trying to do. It has largely been suggesting that the homosexual is quite a nice chap. The suggestion is, "Do not be frightened of him. He is really a decent chap". Let us not be too legal about things and not too prudish about them. In my opinion, in the general run the homosexual is a dirty-minded danger to the virile manhood of this country. The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) laughs, but it is important for any country to have a virile manhood and to see that it is not corrupted by such men as these.
It has been stated that we must protect the youth of the country from these homosexuals. I suggest that it is equally important that we protect the homosexual from himself and that we should protect all those with whom he comes into contact, not only youth. I am sure that if many hon. Members had


seen the mental and the physical state to which some young men have been reduced by being corrupted by these homosexuals they would know what was their duty tonight and they would know that they must not allow any change in this law.
We may well be in the position, if we do what we are asked to do, of seeing notices outside anyone's house saying, "Homosexual experiences can be had within". So far as I can judge, legally there would be nothing to prevent that. We have driven the less fortunate sisters of these people into the cellars, where they are now controlled by the criminal population. We must be extremely careful before we allow full rein to these people to practise in this country the very horrible sin of the homosexual.
I agree that if these people are sent to prison they should, if necessary, have compulsory medical treatment there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of what sort?"] It has already been admitted by the highest medical authorities in this country that many homosexuals could benefit from medical treatment. If they could, and if they find themselves in prison, we should make sure that medical treatment is available. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that this is a most amusing subject. I cannot impress upon them too highly that it is so serious and so distressing to those it touches that it merits a little more than their humour and laughter.
Paragraph 11 of the Wolfenden Report contains these words:
… self-deception can be carried to great lengths …".
We must not deceive ourselves that we are just being fashionable and that it is rather clever today to think that sin does not exist in any form and, where it does, that we should condone it.
I wish to quote from the Daily Express, which received such a glowing commendation from the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. It said recently:
Now that Mr. Robinson and his supporters believe that the climate of opinion—both in and out of Westminster—may have altered, they are hoping for a majority backing on the Labour benches and for a good haul of votes from among the seventy-four new Tory M.P.s 'who entered Parliament last October.
I am sure from my experience in the House that the hon. Member will not

get the backing of the Labour Party or his own colleagues on this. I am even more certain that he need not look for such misguided help tonight from the seventy-four new Tory Members of the House.

8.13 p.m.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) on his very good fortune in winning in the Ballot whereby he was placed in the favourable position of being able to initiate a debate in the House tonight. I should also like to compliment him on the restrained manner in which he put forward his case. But I regret that I cannot congratulate him on his choice of subject. There are so many issues which could have been usefully discussed, and at the end of the discussion my hon. Friend could, if necessary, have led all his right hon. and hon. Friends into the Division Lobby.
On Monday, the Daily Express, a paper with which I usually do not agree, published an opinion that this debate is a waste of time. It suggested that this Parliamentary time might have been used to better purpose. I agree with that opinion.
On the other hand, there was an article in the Observer on Sunday, 19th June, written by the Reverend A. Hallidie Smith, which opened with this paragraph:
Part Two of the Wolfenden Report is to be debated again in the Commons on June 29. Since the last debate in November, 1958, little has been heard from Westminster other than the stock cliches that 'this is a difficult and complex problem' and that 'legislation art the present time would be premature.' But among the general public it seems that legal reform is demanded, or at least that its necessity is widely accepted.
I can only say that the reverend gentleman and I must move in very different circles. A good deal of Press publicity was given to our debate in November, 1958, and several of my constituents spoke to me about it at that time. But since then I have not heard homosexuality mentioned. Does the demand for a change in the law come from the general public in St. Pancras, North? I doubt it.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Shocking.

Dr. Broughton: I am sorry if my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends object to that, but I want to point out that the demand is not coming from the general public in Batley and Morley, because I have not heard the topic mentioned during the last eighteen months.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North that he might be well advised to inquire into the source of the present demand. If he does that, he may then find that behind the present small wave of pressure which has swept him to the fore there are homosexuals whose indignation at the attitude of the community towards them and whose fear of harsh laws urge them to try this means towards escape from the wrath of the law. Is it not probable that they wish to be able to ignore public opinion? Perhaps my hon. Friend realises all this and pleads their case because he sympathises with them in their predicament.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have been very long-suffering. I cannot understand how anyone can possibly imagine that my motives are any other than those.

Dr. Broughton: If those are my hon. Friend's motives and he is motivated by sympathy, let me say at once that he certainly sympathises with homosexuals as individuals no more than I do. In a professional capacity, I have tried to help a number of them.
But I suggest that in our responsible position as Members of Parliament it is not enough to focus our attention on the difficulties of a minority group. Of course their case must be considered, but we must survey the community as a whole and legislate for the good of the majority, even if by so doing it hurts a minority.
The problem that we have to consider is a difficult one, and I believe that we should approach it with great care. First, let us look at the cause of homosexuality. A little is known about this now, and there are several hypotheses put forward. The one which I personally accept is that homosexuality may be regarded as a form of immaturity. That hypothesis suggests that every one of us, in the course of our psycho-sexual development, enters a homosexual phase. That phase occurs at the time of adolescence. It is well known that at that age a girl may get what I believe is called

a "pash" on another girl, and boys hero-worship and idolise members of their sex capable of outstanding masculine achievements. That is the age when youngsters band themselves together in groups of the same sex. Certainly not all of them—only a few—indulge in homosexual practices, and the majority sooner or later develop by taking the normal, daring step forward to heterosexuality. A minority make little or no progress in that direction and remain with a sexual propensity for persons of their own sex.
I need say little about the distribution of homosexuality as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North gave it to us so clearly. As he has said, it occurs in all nations, in all parts of the country, and in all walks of life. I have had patients who were well-educated, highly-cultured professional men. Here, let me say to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) that these homosexuals are certainly not all horrible people. As I say, I have had professional men as patients and I have had patients who were manual workers.
What of the numbers? Again, I can do little better than repeat what my hon. Friend said. It is not possible accurately to ascertain the numbers, but I have heard it said, as my hon. Friend mentioned, that about 4 per cent. of the male population is homosexual and indulging in homosexual practices. But if the hypothesis as to cause, which I have attempted to explain, is accepted, it will be understood that there will be many more than that number with some degree of incomplete psychosexual development. At one end of the scale there will be men who are approaching, say, 100 per cent. heterosexual, and at the other end men approaching 100 per cent. homosexual. In between those two extremes there will be a variety of sexual propensities for one or other sex.
It is important to realise that, because whilst I believe that nothing can be done' to change an adult man who is, say,. 75 per cent. homosexual, a man who is, say, 60 per cent. homosexual and 40 per cent. heterosexual can lead a heterosexual life under favourable circumstances.
Another important question that we might ask is: what are the personality types that are homosexual? From what


I have already said, it will be realised that homosexuality occurs in all personality types, but two types ought to be particularly mentioned. The first is described as the adolescent and mentally immature adult, some of whom overcompensate for their inferiority by bravado. They are aggressive types, apt to be bullies, and those of them who are homosexuals I believe are dangerous as homosexuals.
I believe that the present laws keep that type under control to a large extent. Hon. Members, with their wide experience of life and their knowledge of people, will know the personality type to which I refer, and I think that they should ask themselves what kind of behaviour might be expected from that personality type, who is a homosexual, if, by accepting the Wolfenden Report, it appeared that the State condoned homosexuality.
The second personality type to which especial reference should be made is that described in the Wolfenden Report as severely damaged personalities. Some of these are obviously effeminate, flauntingly exhibitionist and deeply resentful anti-social types. Given a change in the law, I believe that those two types would snap their fingers in the face of public opinion. I think that there would be a display of homosexual feeling and a development of a homosexual cult, all of which would be objectionable to the majority of people.
We are aware that already some homosexuals gather together in groups, and instances occur of the seduction of others. Drinking parties are organised as a preliminary to the practice of homosexual offences, and the culprits lack all sense of sin in this respect. Their type of sexual behaviour gives them great enjoyment, and that is all they care about. With the State condoning homosexuality, I fear that that practice would grow. There might even be cases of men who are by their make up, shall we say, 60 per cent. heterosexual and 40 per cent. homosexual, at present living normal. respectable lives, being led astray.
I think, too, that were the recommendations of the Wolfenden Report to be accepted, we might expect to find a display in public of homosexual feelings, particularly by the exhibitionist types. I fear that bullies and seducers

in positions of authority might make homosexual demands on their subordinates. I think that that is possible. I believe that at the present time, little, if any, of that occurs, because if a person in a position of authority asks a subordinate to indulge in a homosexual practice he is asking him to take part in a criminal offence. If, however, the Wolfenden Report were accepted, he would be asking the man merely to consent to something permitted by the law, and it is not outside the realms of possibility that if the subordinate did not agree to this improper suggestion his job might be in jeopardy.
There is a possibility that there would be some increase in homosexual practices. All of those would offend normal people who, after all, are in a majority. It would be a thoroughly bad influence on the young in the difficult period of their transition to heterosexuality. I look upon homosexuality as biologically wrong, and I think, therefore, that any encouragement of it would damage society. It may well be that the law at present is too savage in some cases, and I must say that I was very impressed by the speech which we heard in the debate eighteen months ago by the hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) on this point, putting forward his ideas about some alterations in the law; but I believe that homosexual practice should remain an offence to show our disapproval of that type of conduct.
My hon. Friend seeks to remedy what he considers an injustice inflicted on a small minority. I can understand his point of view, but I ask the House to consider the effects of such a change on the majority. I think that the effects would be harmful and against the public interest, therefore, I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In calling the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), I want to make it clear that it is on the main Question, because his Amendment has not been selected.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am sure that the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) for a speech of great moderation which I myself will endeavour to emulate. I must say that I felt


that the speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) was in the best possible taste, and let me say at once, as one who disagrees in the main with the objectives of the supporters of the Motion, that I have a great admiration for those people, both inside and outside this House, who incur public stigma by supporting a policy which is contrary to public opinion a great deal of which is ill-informed.
I would not for a moment attempt to contest the view put forward by the mover of this Motion that it is in any circumstances the duty of the Government to lead on issues before the country. If I really believed that the changes asked for by the hon. Gentleman would really serve the public well, should be with him in standing for those things which a great many people outside the House regard with revulsion and wholeheartedly condemn. I do not for a moment resent what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, and I honour those who endeavour to right what they feel to be an injustice.
Before I say why I cannot accept what the mover of the Motion wishes us to do, let me mention one or two things on which I hope there is common ground. The first is the very urgent need for research on this question. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) was not right when he said that no one had written about this subject until the Wolfenden Report. The references are enormous in their length. Nevertheless, if one reads from Hirschfeld down to West, or later than that, one is still left with the majority of the questions unanswered.
The second thing on which there ought to be common agreement is that this homosexual tendency is, on the whole, generated by early environmental conditions. In addition to much more khowledge of heterosexual affairs, parents should be told something of the dangers of certain types of upbringing which may well influence people to develop homosexual tendencies. I hope we shall have a programme of research not limited to the £5,000 which my right hon. Friend mentioned. I should like to see one of the United Nations organisations spending a great deal of money on a comprehensive investigation of these matters.

Mrs. White: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is surely extra

ordinarily difficult to have adequate research into a matter which is a criminal offence?

Mr. Shepherd: It is probably difficult to have adequate research into an issue which is (a) a public offence and (b) something which, on the whole, people do not wish other people to know anything about. Nevertheless, I do not think that either of those difficulties is, in fact, insuperable.
The next thing on which we have common ground is the need for a more liberal interpretation of the existing law. My own feeling is that justice is done in these sorts of circumstances by having a deterrent law liberally administered. I view with great revulsion some of the stale prosecutions, such as the prosecution of the homosexual instead of the blackmailer, which take place in this country. I hope that those who are responsible will be made mindful of the view of this House and that there will be, in respect of what may be done in a legislative sense, a much more liberal interpretation of the existing law.
The next thing on which I think we have agreement here tonight is that all homosexuals are not revolting creatures of odious femininity who want to flaunt themselves before the public and who are nauseating members of society. I say at once that there are plenty of that kind. There are the male prostitutes and others who are revolting people. But we must accept, and I really want to bring this home to people outside the House, that the great majority of homosexuals are reasonable people in other respects, many of them struggling bravely against their difficulties and doing their best to live as good citizens. Most of all must we honour those who, having these strong tendencies, fight against them and do not indulge in homosexual practices. I hope that, if the debate does nothing else, it will establish that in the public mind.
It is not enough to base our judgment on sympathy for the homosexual. Society has certain rights and standards which it is entitled to enforce. Our judgment here tonight ought to be a correlation of sympathy for the homosexual and what we regard as just and proper for the vast majority of people in our society.
I am not sure that a great deal of the propaganda on this issue which has been conducted by those who want to


help the homosexual has done so. I suggest that the last two years have, on the whole, made life exceedingly difficult for many homosexuals. Two or three years ago, the man who in middle age had not married would be able to say of himself, and other people would say of him, that he was probably a gay bachelor. With that rather light-hearted and probably quite erroneous assessment of his sexual nature, he would get away. Today, individuals know more about this subject. They have heard a great deal more talk about it and they say other things about the man whom they had previously called a gay bachelor. I wonder whether the proposed changes in the law would be any more helpful to the homosexual than the propaganda of the last two years has been.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North was a little unkind to me when he misinterpreted the earlier words of my Amendment, which I am not allowed to move and which I mention only in passing. I want to make clear what I mean when I say that the proposed change would not alter the status of the homosexual in society. This is a very important point for the House to appreciate. As I see it, the homosexual fixes his resentment of heterosexual society on the existing law, but what the homosexual wants is not really a change in the law; he wants to bring about a condition in which he is no longer an outsider, in which he is no longer in a minority, in which he no longer needs to try to hide his true attitude towards sexual matters. He tries to rationalise this in terms of objection to the law.
The real thing which irks homosexuals is that they are different from other people. I am perfectly satisfied that, although there may be some marginal advantage to homosexuals in an alteration of the law, it would not on the whole change the attitude of society to homosexual practices. Therefore, there would be no real advantage to the average homosexual.
I want to underline what the hon. Gentleman said. I thought that everything in his speech was fair and honourable except the fact that he tried to hide from the House that there is a wide variety of homosexual and heterosexual tendencies. If it were the case that we had to deal only with genuine inverts to

whom an association with a woman was revolting, I should have no difficulty in saying where I stand. But, as the hon. Gentleman carefully pointed out, we are not dealing with that. We are very fortunate to have the advantage of a book which has just been published entitled "A Minority". When I have returned it to the Library, I invite hon. Members to borrow it, or, if they are wealthier than I am, they can buy it for 30s.
I think that this book is of transcending importance. It tabulates the views of 127 homosexuals who were interviewed. Let me say at once that this work was inspired by those who want homosexual reform and therefore it is not suspect, as I am. This book states that 20 per cent. of the homosexuals who were interviewed had had regular heterosexual experience at some time during their lives. Therefore, we must not fall into the trap of believing that we are dealing with a helpless minority of men who have only one choice before them, namely, homosexual activity. It is not true, as the hon. Gentleman tried to convince us, that we are dealing with people who have an irresistible compulsion to indulge in homosexual tendencies.
I think that we ought to realise that, although we have sympathy for the homosexuals, they are not the most desirable section of our community and that we have a right as a country to do all we can within humanity to discourage homosexuals, for the benefit of society and, indeed, for the benefit of homosexuals. A life without children and without normal family existence, a life in which one goes into public lavatories looking for one's associations, is not something to which any individual ought to be committed. If by its deterrent effect the law can save a hundred people a year from going on to the path of homosexuality, I think that the element of injustice to a few is justified.
There are, I think, weaknesses about homosexual character which we ought not to ignore. There are serious weaknesses about homosexual character which are dangerous in some cases and certainly disturbing in others, and I am convinced that an increase in homosexual activity would be damaging to the community.
Why do I think that it would be damaging? First, because homosexuals


are, by their very nature, promiscuous. I do not want to blame that on homosexuality, because it is merely the fact that a man is a polyerotic individual, if not polygamous, and when he is freed from the restraint of marriage, as is the case of the homosexual, he indulges his fancy in a number of different directions. But the homosexual is terribly promiscuous. If one reads this report, "A Minority", one will see that about 26 per cent. of the interviewed homosexuals had between 12 and 24 different homosexual partners during the past year. What is more important is that homosexuals are proselytisers.

Mr. Austen Albu: Has the hon. Gentleman any information on the comparable figures for heterosexuals?

Mr. Shepherd: That would make a very interesting discussion into which I cannot be led because of the pressure of time and the subject of the debate, but I should be prepared to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman personally afterwards.
A damaging aspect of this promiscuity is that the homosexual is a proselytiser. I ask the House to take serious note of what this report says about these 127 volunteers who are reported on by a body favourable to homosexual reform. It states that 20 per cent. prefer to obtain partners who are not homosexuals and another 30 per cent. are attracted by men who are not themselves homosexuals.
I ask the House to appreciate what would happen if we said to these men, "Society no longer takes a serious view of what you seek to do." I am convinced that the result would be a substantial increase in homosexual activity. I do not know of any responsible authority, homosexual or otherwise, who would attempt to refute that contention.

Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Member indicated that he would prove that homosexuals were proselytisers. He then produced figures which show that 80 per cent. of the sample were not proselytisers. Incidentally, it is not a typical sample, because these are volunteers who answered an advertisement for the purposes of this research study.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member is not quite right. The sample was obtained in a variety of ways, as he will see if he reads the book. Neither is it true that 80 per cent. of the sample were not proselytisers. There is another category which alters that figure. I do not want to put this any higher than to say that 20 per cent. of these individuals prefer—I stress "prefer"—to have an association with a non-homosexual and that another 30 per cent. were attracted by the non-homosexual.
I have said that this would mean an increase in the danger to the young and I have been assailed by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North because I have made this statement. I will endeavour to the best of my ability to support and defend the view which I have taken. It is commonly said by those who support homosexual reform that a paederast is a specialist section of the homosexual, that he will not associate with adults and that those who associate with adults will not associate with young people.
Let me tell the House what this report said about these 127 homosexuals. Nine per cent. of them thought that it was wrong to associate with boys but that they might be tempted. Nine per cent. said that they would take part in homosexual activity with boys under the age of 17. Six per cent. said that they would be prepared to engage in homosexual activities with boys of any age. Instead of the pattern emerging which is said by homosexuals so frequently of a limited number of people who are prepared only to have associations with young boys and of the others who will avoid it, we see that there is a category of 24 per cent. who will be prepared to engage, in perhaps a variety of circumstances, in homosexual activities with boys.
What the Wolfenden Report is asking us to do concerning consenting acts in private is to legalise buggery. Some hon. Members are not quite aware of that. It is not a question of legalising gross indecency as defined in the Act of 1885. We are being asked by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North to legalise buggery in private, and I would say that there are very compelling reasons why we should not do so.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley spoke about the dangers of individuals who were homosexuals forcing


homosexual practices upon their subordinates. It is interesting to read in this report, "A Minority", that one employer, who now has, apparently, a large business, and who is himself a homosexual, when he employs anybody, prefers to choose—he has one other category I will not mention—homosexuals, and, presumably, he does his best to see that those homosexuals are promoted, and he boasts that now he has five employees who are homosexuals who earn more than £3,000 a year. That is a glimpse of what is happening today, and of what might be possible on a larger scale if the law were altered.
I would say that the case against the change has been very clearly made, but I would ask the House, and my right hon. Friend particularly, to consider one possibility. Up to the time of the Act of 1885 acts of gross indecency in private among males were not actionable. The Act of 1885 made acts of gross indecency, which are rather lesser acts in the homosexual sphere, illegal, and a penalty of two years' imprisonment was provided for. It seems to me that there is a possibility the House might like to think of making a relatively small amendment which would not meet the total demands of the homosexuals but which might go some way to putting the position at any rate apparently on a more equitable basis.
It is this, that we take away that Section in the Act of 1885. That means that acts of gross indecency among consenting adult males in private would not incur the penalty of the law; but acts of sodomy would still incur the penalty of the law. Let me remind the House that heterosexual acts of sodomy also incur the penalty of the law; and, therefore, homosexuals would not be able to say that they had been singled out for a particular form of treatment, because the law as applied to heterosexual acts of that nature would apply equally to homosexuals. I put that suggestion to my right hon. Friend for consideration. It is obviously not something he can decide upon immediately.
I am sorry to have detained the House for so long, but I wanted to put the reasons before the House why I feel that any major alteration in the law is at this stage wrong. I think that the House is entitled to take the view that it ought

not to be too far in advance or behind public opinion. It is entitled to the view that there are grave dangers attached to the general relaxation of existing deterrents on homosexual activities.

Mr. David Weitzman: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt, has he, with the principal, material point here? What is the effect of the present law in regard to this matter?

Mr. Shepherd: I am afraid that I cannot go on much longer. I presume the winding-up speech is due to start.
I have tried to show the House the effect of the existing law. I conceive the existing law as having a deterrent effect upon the marginally homosexual man. I do not think that it has any effect on those unfortunate individuals who are almost completely homosexual. I do not think that if we doubled the penalties, or even if we imposed the death penalty for homosexual activities, we would have any effect on those people who have a distinct and complete homosexual orientation.
But I am convinced that the existing law has an effect on those men for whom there is a choice, who because of their indefinite orientation can swing to either the homosexual or the heterosexual line. In that respect I believe that the existing law is of value to those men and of value to society, and I think that it would be wrong and harmful if we were to make a change which would take from these individuals the stimulus to go along the line of heterosexual activity.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Is the hon. Member aware that on the Report stage Labouchere introduced Section 11 into the 1885 Act? Do I understand that the hon. Member is prepared to have that Section repealed? It was a Section which stole into the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act in the middle of the Report stage of the Bill, and a Section which the very distinguished judge, Sir Travers Humphreys, condemned. Is the hon. Member prepared to support the repeal of that Section? I think that it would help a great deal if it were repealed.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not want to delay the House much further. I have already said that that might provide an avenue of possible compromise. We might consider any compromise, but I believe that


the existing law has its value and that any change as recommended by the Wolfenden Committee would be strongly against the interests not only of the community but of the homosexuals themselves.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I only want very briefly to give my wholehearted support to the case which was put so moderately by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). There seems to me one sufficient reason why the House ought to make the substantial change in the law which my hon. Friend and, indeed, the Wolfenden Committee have urged. It is that our criminal law on this issue at present discriminates against one minority and in doing that, in my view, it infringes on the essential liberty of the individual.
I do not believe as a principle that the State or the law has any right to interfere with the acts of private individuals, whatever they may be and however much one might dislike them, which have no effect on other people. They are surely a matter of conscience and not of law, and it is the mark of a truly free country to leave them to conscience and not to the courts.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that he would not have the criminal law interfere with euthanasia, abortion and incest?

Mr. Jay: I should have thought that it could be argued that all those practices did have effects on society. I was saying that that was the criterion according to which we should judge.
If anyone really seriously contends that private acts of this kind between consenting adults in private do harm to society I would say two things to them. How can one possibly argue that these acts do so while adultery and lesbianism do not? Surely there cannot be any logic or any ethic in that distinction.
Secondly, I would say that whenever in such issues as these there is a doubt—and there may be a doubt about those mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd)—looking around the world as we see it today, we ought to give the benefit of the doubt to the

side of toleration. I only add this tonight. The letters I have received since the previous debate—and I have received some letters, like other hon. Members—have convinced me that this issue is not, as I admit I previously supposed, a rather abstract question affecting a tiny minority of people. We are undoubtedly concerned here with real suffering, amounting in some cases to persecution and directly affecting hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. Therefore, I hope that this Parliament will distinguish itself on this issue by coming down on the side of personal liberty and will remove this seventy-five-year-old blot from our criminal law.

9.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I shall try not to detain the House too long so that other hon. Members may still have an opportunity to join in. It may be useful if I say a few things on this subject. We all remember the last debate, which was in 1958, and I think that it was common ground then that no steps should be taken which would be detrimental to the general public interest. I shall come back to that in a few minutes. On that occasion, hon. Members differed widely in their views on whether to implement the Wolfenden Committee recommendations would be injurious to the public interest, and also as to their conclusions on particular questions which one has to ask oneself before deciding this issue.
Having listened to the debate, I find that there is as great a difference of opinion as there was on that occasion. I have found a considerable apposition, just as I have found in the speeches of those who put forward the case, as did the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), great delicacy of approach, and a considerable basis of knowledge, such as was exhibited by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). So, although we have made some considerable progress, no one who has to legislate or decide on this subject can deny that there is still a very great difference of opinion, and, in my opinion, a very great deal of work still to be done. I hope that my contribution may be of use, in a constructive way, in indicating what we have


been doing since the last debate and in trying to answer two or three of the points made.
Let me come immediately to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, who referred to a small Amendment which would erase from the Statute Book the Labouchere Amendment. That was a matter which I mentioned in my previous speech. I described the state of the law, and I said that we had a combination of the Labouchere Amendment and other statutes, not one statute, but statutes whose substance dated from Henry VIII and before.
I expressed doubt whether, if we had a clean slate we would legislate exactly like this. I remain exactly of the same opinion today. I also said—and I still adhere to the view—that before any prohibitions are removed we should understand what the consequences would be. In my speech, not only am I going to give some account of the progress made since the last debate, but I am also going to ask certain questions, and if hon. Members can answer them on this occasion, or some other occasion, it seems to me that we shall make further progress.
On the question of simply withdrawing the Labouchere Amendment, I cannot tonight make any statement on our intention to legislate. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, and I also read his article in the New Statesman; indeed, I think that I have read every article that has been written in the last fortnight on this subject. As the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) indicated, there has been a new spate of interest on this subject. I should like to take as an illustration of the views of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North something which was in his article in the New Statesman but not in his speech.
The hon. Member referred in his speech to the many countries who have changed the law, but in his article in the New Statesman he drew attention to the particularly important example of Norway, where, he says, private homosexual acts between consenting adults may be prosecuted, but only if the prosecution is deemed necessary in the public interest. I take that illustration as an example, not to torpedo the hon. Member or to deny the sincerity of his approach, but to show how very difficult the situation is. This

is very much the same kind of attempt to get the best of both worlds that we found in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) in the last debate, when he said that we might get the best of both worlds by keeping the substantive law as it is and narrowly limiting its enforcement.
In fact, he has suggested that prosecutions should be instituted only by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with the consent of the Attorney-General, and that proceedings should be taken only if the public interest so requires. If we could reach a situation like that it might well be the solution of the problem, and I have some sympathy with the end in view. As, so far, my hon. and learned Friend has not been fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair, if he develops this point on another occasion I shall listen to what he says, as I have listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has said this evening. I have some sympathy with the end in view, but local administration of criminal justice through chief officers of police and the right of the private citizen to prosecute are essentially features of the legal system of England and Wales.
I consider that a very special case must be made out in each instance before the prosecution of any particular offence is reserved to the Director of Public Prosecutions, with the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend. This is an absolute part of the law of the country, and if we depart from it I am afraid that we shall make a novelty which will not be typical of the British law up to date.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is it not part of the present injustice that the enforcement of this law is very patchy, in that in certain counties the chief constables, or whoever is responsible, do not enforce the law at present, while in other counties it is enforced rigorously? Is that a good basis for justice?

Mr. Butler: I recently read a newspaper article by Mr. Rolph, who has contributed greatly to this question, in which he suggested that I should give instructions to the police. That is impossible under the general system of the English constitution. I have sympathy with the end which my hon. and


learned Friend has in view, and if he and his hon. Friends can suggest any modification of our existing practice which does not run counter to the existing relationship between the executive and the judiciary, I shall be glad to consider it.
I am making the point that it is very difficult to get the best of both worlds, because there is an objection in principle. It would mean either that enforcement of the law against a particular class of offender, such as consenting adults committing homosexual acts in private, would cease, or that some limited class of offender would be singled out by some discretionary process for prosecution, and all others would be allowed to break the law with impunity?
Not only will there be an objection on grounds of principle, but it will also raise practical problems. If any hon. Member can help me to find an answer to these problems, I shall be glad. For example, who will assess the public interest, and how will it be assessed? How are we to decide it in legislation? What does "consenting" mean? That is a very difficult point, to which I saw no answer in the Wolfenden Report. Why, in the case of a man, should the age of consent be 21, while the age of consent in respect of a girl, in certain Acts, is 16? The Wolfenden Committee excluded the Armed Forces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said. Are we to accept its recommendations to that extent? It is very difficult to carry through this reform if we make that big omission.
Lastly, can someone help me to say how we should define the words "in private"? I would remind the House that this is a Private Member's Motion; perhaps that is misunderstood outside. When we are discussing legislation these things will have to be precisely answered, but up to date I do not know the answers, and if I can have some help on that this debate will be of some service.

Mr. Wilkins: Is this not the highest crime of all in the Armed Forces, save for murder?

Mr. Butler: That, I think, must be taken as a matter of opinion.

Mr. Wilkins: Not in punishment?

Mr. Butler: Yes, in punishment. I cannot go into it further except to ask for some assistance in reaching a conclusion. There is another aspect of the problem—

Mr. R. T. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman has said that we should be creating a precedent if we took from the ordinary citizen the right to prosecute. We should not be creating a precedent. There are a number of Acts under which a prosecution can only be brought with the permission of the Attorney-General. Under the Official Secrets Act one can only be brought with his permission if he certifies that it is in the public interest that it should be brought. We thus have an exact precedent for what is now suggested.

Mr. Butler: I am indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is well versed in law, but I have consulted my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on this matter and, up to date, we do not see any way through. I offer this to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and others if they think it may be of some assistance. We are aware of the precedents quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
I shall not go into the question of blackmail. My information is that criminal proceedings are rarely instituted in such circumstances. I cannot undertake to issue instructions to the police, but I will make that reference, and my understanding is that proceedings are taken only in exceptional and well-proved and justified circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford laid down three preliminaries before action, and these I accept. One is research, another is to educate, and continue to educate, public opinion—I believe that public opinion is being continually educated on this matter; I do not think that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North need despair of that and the third thing is that those who speak of these matters should acknowledge the difference between sin and crime, and in attempts to reform the law should freely acknowledge that homosexuality is, in general, an undesirable practice. I have noticed, to my satisfaction, a slight improvement in the last direction. For instance, there was


the leader in The Times today which came down in favour of reform but said that this fight
…will not be won by the presentation of homosexuality as something to be regarded as otherwise than unnatural, sinful, and to be resisted wherever possible.
It is very much better, if we are to aim at reforming an unsatisfactory law, that we should at least have open statements such as those concluding words of The Times leader about this practice, otherwise I do not think that the reformers will make their case. I said that there was a good deal of work to do when I last spoke. I shall not go into the details asked for by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom, about the various types of homosexual and the statistics that we might get, because I do not want to detain the House.
I wish to describe, however, the progress we have made. The first is a research project under the auspices of Birkbeck College and financially supported by the Home Office. The object is to compare the psychological and other characteristics of homosexuals sampled from different groups, and to investigate whether those characteristics differ from group to group or differ from characteristics of non-homosexuals. This involves a study of family and social, educational and occupational background, and the personal characteristics of homosexuals who have been convicted of such offences or have been treated in clinics because of such tendencies.
I shall not go into detail, but I have read the book A Minority by Mr. Gordon Westwood. The House will be glad to know that Mr. Westwood is taking part in this project we are sponsoring with Birkbeck College, and we hope that it will provide some uniform and useful information about the cause and nature of homosexuality.
The second line of inquiry which I pursued, following up my promise in the previous debate, is a study not of individual homosexuality but that of groups and the way in which homosexuals associate with them, with particular reference to the means by which and the extent to which homosexual conduct spreads within society. The other way that I promised we would make some investigations and in which we need a great deal more information

is the possibility of influencing homosexual behaviour by psychotherapy or medical means, such as the use of oestrogen. The House may be interested to know that considerable efforts have been made, and are continuing, to add to our knowledge of these matters by the work which has been done by the Prison Medical Services. Here, again, there are limitations in scale, and it is not possible yet to draw any firm conclusions, but we are making progress on the lines which I undertook when I last spoke.

Mr. K. Robinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that oestrogens are no longer forbidden in prisons?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I mean that we have made experiments with its use, and when I speak on Friday next at the commencement of our first psychiatric prison at Grendon Underwood, I propose to explain this further and explain in more detail some of the scientific work which we are doing. The opening of this new prison will, I hope, be a new chapter in the Prison Service in this respect.
These experiments and studies will take some time, and I am not attempting to say that it is solely by research that we shall solve this problem. Nor am I claiming that I cannot accept the Motion solely because I am engaged in research. I do not think that that would be honourable. However, I think that research is important as a means of educating public opinion and of finding out answers to some of the fundamental problems with which we are dealing.
I must now conclude by dealing with the main issue, as I see it, after giving the House that progress report. It seems to me that there is one fundamental question to which we are always brought back. There are, unfortunately, people today to whom criminal law and moral law are co-terminous in the sense that they have no other firm point of reference. They consequently consider that if conduct is not prohibited by criminal law, there is no reason why they should not indulge in it. The restraints which criminal law imposes, therefore, still remain important.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, that in a period when religious and ethical


restraints are weak, as undoubtedly they are now—and they should be strengthened—those of the criminal law acquire a special significance. Nobody occupying my responsible position and seeing the state of crime and the state of morality in the country at the moment can doubt that the second line of defence, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, is not sufficiently strong at present.
Therefore, in the state of progress which we have made so far with public opinion and with our research, I would not regard this as being a time to let down our first line of defence, unless I find an absolutely satisfactory way of doing so.
During this period of research and consideration, we must, therefore, ask ourselves whether the removal of the legal sanction against homosexual conduct between consenting adults in private would weaken the moral sanction against homosexual conduct. Would the removal of the legal sanction make it more difficult or less for the bisexual and the young to resist temptation to homosexual conduct? Would homosexuals be more ready, or less, to break their homosexual associations and to seek medical treatment? Would homosexual conduct spread, or, losing the glamour of its rebellion, would it decline?
The answers to those questions will become less speculative than they are at present in proportion as our knowledge grows, as our knowledge of the social and psychological background improves. Our judgment is likely to be all the sounder not if we shun discussion but if we allow discussion to proceed, if we examine every concrete suggestion made. I think that progress has been made with the positive suggestions made in the debate. I think that progress has been made in the study of this matter by the Church. I refer to another book, Dr. Sherwin. Bailey's book, "Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition", which makes a remarkable contribution on these difficult issues.
When I last spoke I said that we would undertake certain work. That we have started. The debate will take the discussion further. I recognise that the present law imposes hardship on the constitutional homosexual and that it

has its own undesirable consequences. I do not believe that the full case for a change has yet been made, nor am I convinced that we are yet in a position to take a final decision on what the precise nature of the change should be. We need more information and we are trying to get it. We need more time to discuss the very fundamental issues which arise in this matter of the relationship between law and morals and more time to weigh the possible, and necessarily speculative, consequences of modifying that relationship.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: This is the second time on which many of us have spoken in this House on this subject. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that it is not an easy subject on which to speak and that those who speak in support of my hon. Friend's Motion certainly do not do so with a view to seeking easy popularity. But if it is difficult for us an individuais I think that it is even more difficult for a political party to have an official line on a matter of this kind. I wish to make perfectly clear at this stage that tonight I am speaking for myself alone, not for my party, but I hope that my views will commend themselves to most of my colleagues.
Tonight we have the opportunity, which is all too rare in this House, of being able to speak and to act as individuals. But if we have the right to speak our own minds tonight, I believe that we also have the duty to act as well. I think that it would be a matter for great regret if the House adjourned tonight without having reached a decision one way or the other upon the matter before us.
The debate has shown that this is a widespread problem, probably more widespread than is usually thought. All of us in the House have known public men who have been discredited and ruined, in spite of many years of devoted public service and in spite of characters which were otherwise unblemished, because they gave way to what Freud called a physical or psychological abnormality, or what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) called an involuntary deviation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) reminded us that homosexuals are a minority in the population and that it is our duty to protect the majority. That, of course, is a point of view which all of us would accept, and if I thought that by doing what my hon. Friend has suggested we were endangering the moral well-being of the majority of the population I should hesitate to take the step that he proposes. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) gave us a gloomy picture of what he believed would result from any change in the law. But those possibilities must have been present in the minds of the thirteen men and women who constituted the Wolfenden Committee, and of whom twelve decided to repudiate those dangers and to accept the proposal for an amendment of the law.
Unless one believes that greater moral danger would be done all of us on both sides of the House must remember that we must always be jealous of the rights of minorities. Tonight we have had various estimates of the number of homosexuals in the country. Obviously, it is difficult for any of us to be positive about it. The lowest estimate which I have been able to find is 500,000, approximately the population of the City of Leeds. The highest estimate I have found is that they are nearly as numerous as the population of Wales.
Whatever estimate we accept of the number of homosexuals and if we add the members of their families and their friends—who perhaps share their anxiety and their embarrassment to almost the same degree as the homosexuals themselves—then we are dealing with and proposing to legislate for a substantial percentage of the population. It is a great problem not only from the moral point of view but also from the point of view of the numbers it affects. And it is my own, purely personal, point of view that it is time we acted.
I confess that I was a little disappointed in the Home Secretary's speech. We welcomed the progress report which he gave us upon the research which has been conducted. We know that the right hon. Gentleman's heart is in that research. We welcomed the attention which he gave to it, and we were glad to have the progress report of what

has been achieved so far. But otherwise it was a characteristic speech, of the sort we are accustomed to hear from the right hon. Gentleman—the kind of speech in which he promises us every assistance short of actual help.
He fell back tonight upon the differences of opinion, but I remember that when we were discussing the Wolfenden Committee's Report before and when we discussed the Second Reading of the Street Offences Bill there were strong differences of opinion on prostitution which cut right across party lines; but the right hon. Gentleman was not deterred on the latter occasion by the fact that there was not unanimity of opinion in the House.
I certainly do not intend to do what was suggested by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)—to accuse anybody of moral cowardice upon this issue. I know the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has to face, and I sympathise with him in his position, because this is one of those fields of human life in which morality and law overlap, and the difficulty for all of us who call ourselves Christians is always to know how far the State can legislate in order to make men and women into moral creatures. It is a subject—and I hope that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) will not take offence if I suggest is—which was discussed by Mr. Justice Devlin last year in his Maccabaean Lecture to the British Academy on "The Enforcement of Morals", and which has been dealt with more recently in the current number of Parliamentary Affairs by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.
I hope that all hon. Members will realise that none of us can be too dogmatic or wholly consistent in a metaphysical dilemma of this kind. But does it not seem a little strange to hon. Members in all parts of the House that a State which allows an elderly man to seduce a young girl immediately she reaches the age of consent, which allows a married man to consort with prostitutes, and which allows a woman to resort to homosexual practices with impunity, nevertheless should be so rigid and so harsh in its approach to male homosexuality?
The explanation is that those fields to which I have referred are those in which, with the approval of the Churches, we believe it right to allow a man or a


woman to exercise a moral choice rather than bring those activities within the criminal code. As Sir John Wolfenden pointed out to the British Medical Association the other day, it is significant that only about three-and-a-half of the Ten Commandments are embodied in the criminal code.
I mention these things to show the difficulty which we all face. Those of us who adopt what his Lordship of Exeter called a liberal approach rather than a theocratic approach, resent very strongly indeed the suggestion that we are less firm in our adherence to spiritual and moral values than are those who take a different point of view. But that is the impression which some organs of the Press have striven to create. There was an example in the Sunday Express last Sunday in an article by Mr. John Gordon, whom I always read with pleasure and sometimes with appreciation. That was not my reaction on Sunday. Mr. Gordon described how the homosexuals were
whooping with delight at the certainty of victory".
He went on to say:
But they may find the moral standards of most M.P.s a little higher than they calculate.
It is only fair to stress that those of us who take this point of view—we take it with a certain amount of hesitation and realising the implications that taking it may have—are nevertheless taking exactly the same point of view as those leaders of the religious denominations to whom my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North referred.
Yet some papers have been apparently at pains to give the impression that the only effect of implementing the Wolfenden proposals would be to legalise homosexuality between consenting adults. I do not think that we can emphasise too frequently that the Wolfenden Report also calls for the imposition of heavier penalties for offences against young people and that it stresses the need for the rigorous enforcement of the provisions about public decency. Moreover, the dangers envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley did not seem to influence the psychiatrists who sat on the Wolfenden Committee. If only the true implications of what the Wolfenden Committee recommended were generally

recognised, the few pockets of resistance still remaining would rapidly disappear.
I want to get this legislation on the broad general ground that the present law operates unjustly and harshly against a minority of men, who anyhow lead their lives under a shadow of fear, of guilt, and of feeling different.
The right hon. Gentleman put a number of questions to us, and we shall consider them and consider their implications. If the right hon. Gentleman extended his researches to other countries, he might find in some of them the answers to the questions he put to us tonight. This is a matter upon which we lag behind the other countries to which hon. Gentlemen have referred. However, it is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a number of inquiries, which will mean that legislation will take time, but I hope that he will not use the researches which he is conducting as an alibi for going slow upon the various solutions which have been put before us. If the right hon. Gentleman would seriously consider and report to us on the practicability of carrying out what he said is now the practice in Norway, it would relieve a great deal of anxiety. And many of the most objectionable features of this law would be removed if there could only be some consistency of application throughout the country. Although we all know the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman has in enforcing uniformity, he surely cannot have forgotten that he has regular conferences with chief constables, and it would be perfectly easy for him to lead the chief constables along rather more progressive lines than many of them are proceeding along at present.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should put to chief constables the undesirability of basing prosecutions upon evidence which has come out in blackmail cases. I suggest, too, that he should urge upon them the desirability of establishing two main criteria before prosecutions take place—first, the safeguarding of young people, and, secondly, the protection of public decency.
Unless the Government go rather further than the Home Secretary has gone tonight, I shall be happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North if he sees fit to press the matter to a Division.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Having listened to some of the speeches tonight, I have come, very slowly and with some anxiety, to the view that at the present time it would not be possible, if one is looking to the safeguarding of our youth, to support this Motion. The Wolfenden Report is probably one of the best known, most discussed and least read Reports of our times. I have been very surpised by the number of people to whom I have spoken who have never handled the Report, or read it. I can at least claim to have done that. I can also claim some experience in the way in which the courts try to punish homosexuals, and concern themselves with their treatment.
From that experience, limited though it may be, I am satisfied that the view of the Wolfenden Committee that the homosexual is found at all levels of intelligence and society is correct, but we must avoid the danger of blowing up this problem to exaggerated proportions. As the Wolfenden Committee found, the number of practising homosexuals in this country is a very small minority of the population.
I suggest that one can infer from the Wolfenden Report with some accuracy that these people fall broadly into three groups. First, there is the person who is exclusively homosexual—one might describe him as a true homosexual. I do not believe that that person is necessarily an evil person. The true homosexual is frequently born into that state or condition. He has no choice, and it may well be that throughout his life his sexual appetite is directed by nature in one unnatural direction. Then there is the second class of homosexual, who has a choice; who can turn towards natural affections and satisfaction. Thirdly, there is the class of person who is just criminally perverse.
Although I have, as, I am sure, most hon. Members have, a very real sympathy for the true homosexual, I have less sympathy for what might be called the ambisexual, and no sympathy at all for the purely perverse. I think that the reason why most people who are against any form of sympathy towards homosexuals and feel so strongly about this is that they confuse the three classes of persons involved.
The main recommendation of the Wolfenden Report is, of course, that homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should be allowed—or, at least, should not be visited by the criminal law. My view, which, I think, is shared by a number of hon. Members, is that if that recommendation were implemented there would be an obvious increase in the danger of the corruption of youth. I say that because, if the law were so changed, there would be nothing except ethical standards or the condemnation of society—which still, of course, exists—to prevent two males living together as lovers. That, I would suggest, and I put it forward as a matter of commonsense, would be the worst possible example one could give to youth.

Dr. Stross: The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that he had some sympathy with those who could hardly help themselves because they were suffering, as it were, from an inborn defect. There are other inborn defects, such as a tendency to diabetes, which is a recessive genetic defect, or a tendency to hair-lip. If his argument is not carefully thought out, it means that we have got to send all these people to prison for offending against their own background.

Mr. Gardner: I do not want to treat the hon. Gentleman's interjection with anything but respect, but this is something in a category by itself. It is not a disease. It is a state. I have tried to distinguish between categories of homosexuals and I have said, I hope clearly, that I have, as I am sure most people have, sympathy for the homosexual.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: If we are to allow this sort of thing to occur, would my hon. Friend be happy to go into a public house and find a couple of hairy old males sitting on each other's knees and liking it? Is that what we are going to allow?

Mr. Gardner: When I express sympathy with the true homosexual it does not mean that I have any sympathy for his activities. I thought that I had made that quite clear.
There is no doubt that the effect of the present law is to prevent the sort of thing to which my hon. and gallant Friend has so colourfully referred. It


is not referred to in the terms which he used, but I think it is covered by paragraph 23 of the Wolfenden Report. That paragraph points out:
It must not be thought that the existence of the homosexual propensity necessarily leads to homosexual behaviour of an overtly sexual kind.
It goes on to say:
Many persons, though they are aware of the existence within themselves of the propensity … successfully control their urges towards overtly homosexual acts with others, either because of their ethical standards or from fear of social or penal consequences …
Who can say, and where is the statistical evidence, which of those three deterents is uppermost in the minds of people who are now persuaded not to go in for overt acts?
Another consequence of a change in the law would be that it would not be the true homosexual who would necessarily go with the true homosexual. The other people, the ambi-sexual and the others, would be drawn into the vortex of their unnatural desires. if the law were changed, the adult homosexual—and this is said in the Wolfenden Report—could with immunity not only practise his homosexual acts in private with other adults, but he would with impunity be able to procure or attempt to procure other young men—and a man who is 22, 23 or 24 is still young—to perform those acts with him.

Mrs. White: It is true to say that the Wolfenden Report, on the contrary, suggests that there should be heavier penalties for procuring and for keeping disorderly houses for male prostitutes.

Mr. Gardner: That is so, but only where the procuring is by third parties. If the procuring is in private, the approach is different. If the hon. Lady will refer to paragraph 115, she will see that reference is made to this point.
There is no magic in privacy. The fact that these acts would be committed in privacy really does not and cannot excuse them. Many crimes, including murder, are usually committed in private.
There is much in the Wolfenden Report in the minor recommendations with which I agree, for example, those which refer to blackmail and to the Director of Public Prosecutions taking over proceedings if the offender is under

21. In my view, however, it is the permanent duty of the House to safeguard youth and the House would not fulfil that duty if it were to accept the Motion.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he explain something which has been worrying me throughout the debate? If the implementation of the Wolfenden Committee's proposals would result in either a large-scale increase in the number of practising homosexuals or in the perversion of children, why is it that in the countries of Northern Europe which have virtually, implemented those proposals, for instance, Norway in 1944. where there is equal love for children and a desire to protect public morals, there is not found, so far as the Wolfenden Committee was able to discover, any evidence of an increase in the type of activity which my hon. Friend is discussing?

Mr. Gardner: There are no statistics to bear this out. If my hon. Friend will look at paragraph 58, he will see it there said:
It may well be true that the present law deters from homosexual acts some who would otherwise commit them, and to that extent an increase in homosexual behaviour can be expected.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Roy Jenkins.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: Before the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) sits down—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had all the appearance of having sat down. Mr. Jenkins.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: This debate began with an extremely persuasive and moving though moderately phrased speech by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). There has since been no attempt to reply to the extremely powerful arguments he then put before the House. We have just heard a rather equivocal speech from the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) and, a little earlier, we heard what I think it is fair to describe as a deeply prejudiced speech from the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) who was hardly able to refer to the subject without a pejorative note creeping into his voice.
The general expression of view which we have heard has been one of sympathy for the problem and a desire to do something about it, but with some hesitation about concrete proposals. Perhaps the most significant speech in this respect was the one we heard from the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). The hon. Gentleman told us that his mind had moved during the past eighteen months sufficiently for him now not to be able to conceive that we could go on keeping the law as it is now and continuing indefinitely to imprison homosexuals, but he said that we should not change the law now. Certain things must happen first, he said.
This was to some extent the view of the Home Secretary also. I certainly did not gather that the Home Secretary was prepared to defend the present law on its merits or to envisage an indefinite period in which it continued to exist.
The hon. Member for Ashford referred specifically to other sexual sins which have been mentioned by Sir John Wolfenden and said that in all these cases, including homosexuality, the general moral sense against them is not strong enough, and cannot be depended upon to hold the position. But no body of opinion in this House suggests that we should legislate against these other sexual sins and that we should make them not merely sins but crimes as well. Further, I do not believe that any body of opinion in the House, if the Labouchere amendment had not been slipped in on the Report stage of the 1885 Act, would now come forward with a proposal for the Labouchere amendment. Certainly the Home Secretary would not do so. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say explicitly that he would not wish to legislate in this form had it not been done.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I said that the Statutes are so complicated and date from such different dates and had been so complicated by the Labouchere amendment that nobody framing the law from the start would do it in that way.

Mr. Jenkins: I am sure that the Home Secretary, in view of the general sympathy which he expresses on these matters, would not wish to go on record as saying that he himself would legislate in the form of the Labouchere

amendment if it were not there. That is all that I am postulating for the moment.
The difficulty, as I understand it, and a certain genuine difficulty which arises in the minds of some hon. Members, is that we wish that the Labouchere amendment was not there. Of course, it creates an illogical position between homosexuality and Lesbianism. We wish that it was not there, but it is there and there is a difficulty about removing it lest it be thought that in doing so this House was proclaiming that homosexuality is a good thing.
I do not believe that many people would take that view. In view of the form in which the Motion has been moved and of the general expressions of opinion in the House, I do not believe that many people would take that view. But let us assume that that is a genuine danger in the minds of some hon. Members. Let us also assume that the hon. Member for Ashford—and, I think, the Home Secretary—express a very general feeling in the House when they say that public opinion will move, that we cannot go on indefinitely sending homosexuals to prison, that we will legislate in time and that this change will come about. If that is the case, is it desirable that we should attract the greatest possible attention over a long period by a campaign for the removal of the Labouchere amendment?
Hon. Members who take the view that the present law does grave harm but yet are not willing at present to advocate a change in it take a very heavy responsibility upon themselves. But if it is the view that this will come about, that it must come about and that we must move in a more civilised direction, is it sensible to say that it can come about only as a result of a major campaign which will attract the greatest possible attention to what is being done?

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am attracted to the hon. Gentleman's argument. I appreciate the desire to remove the Labouchere amendment. That relates solely to acts of indecency between males in private. I do not believe for one moment that the homosexuals of this country want just that. They want the removal of the crimes of sodomy and buggery from the annals of our crime sheet. If I believed that all that they really wanted


was the removal of what was never intended by Parliament in 1885, that could have been done a long time ago. What we realise today is the contrary of this argument. This is the point which we have to meet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"] It is not a speech; it is a point. The point which we have to meet is this: do we believe that we ought to change the fundamental laws of sodomy and buggery in this country? That is the real issue.

Mr. Jenkins: In the first place, I wish that the hon. Member would not speak as though one were representing a pressure lobby of homosexuals. In considering this question, I am not concerned only with what homosexuals want or even primarily with what they want. I am concerned with what I think is a reasonable law for a civilised country. In the second place, I am not prepared at this stage, or at any stage in the debate, suddenly to pronounce that I know what would be a better reform of the law than twelve members of the Wolfenden Committee after due consideration recommended. On this matter, I am fully prepared to stand solidly behind the Wolfenden recommendations.
One hon. Member in the debate said that if this proposal is adopted there is a danger that homosexuals will regard it as a victory and will celebrate it as such. It will be much more than a victory if it is done in several years' time after a great campaign, which is, apparently, what the Home Secretary says we must have to get it done. It would be far better that those hon. Members who know in their minds that this position cannot, and should not, be

maintained indefinitely should not express sympathy without expressing anything else, but should face the problem squarely now.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North was not asking for precipitate legislation. He was asking for legislation in this Parliament. That is a moderate request. I hope that all hon. Members who know that this change must come and who know that it is right will vote tonight in the conviction that that is what they are voting for.

There are difficulties, no doubt. The Home Secretary put them up. The right hon. Gentleman can be very good at putting difficulties before the House. He can be extremely good at cutting through them when he wants to. I do not believe that difficulties which other countries have not found insuperable are insuperable here. Do not let us be too complacent. I am not sure that misplaced national complacency is not the major British disease at the present time. Do not let us be too eager to stand out as an island against the general current of civilised world opinion. I hope that we can carry this Motion tonight and give a signal to the Government that opinion has changed and that we want legislation at a reasonably early date.

Mr. K. Robinson: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 213.

Division No. 126.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Emery, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)


Atkins, Humphrey
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fitch, Alan
King, Dr. Horace


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lambton, Viscount


Berkeley, Humphry
Foot, Dingle
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lipton, Marcus


Bowles, Prank
Freeth, Denzil
Longden, Gilbert


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Ginsburg, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacColl, James


Chetwynd, George
Greenwood, Anthony
McInnes, James


Critchley, Julian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin


Crosland, Anthony
Grimond. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Mapp, Charles


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Holman, Percy
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holt, Arthur
Marsh, Richard


Delargy, Hugh
Howell, Charles A.
Mayhew, Christopher


Donnelly, Desmond
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Millan, Bruce


Driberg, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Mitchison, G. R.




Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Turner, Colin


Moore, Sir Thomas
Skeffington, Arthur
Wade, Donald


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Wall, Patrick


Oram, A. E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Warbey, William


Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Weitzman, David


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith
Wigg, George


Pavitt, Laurence
Swingler, Stephen
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Powell, J. Enoch
Teeling, William
Wyatt, Woodrow


Rankin, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Reynolds, G. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Zilliacus, K.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomson, C. M. (Dundee, E.)



Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Thornton, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thorpe, Jeremy
Mr. Albu and Sir Leslie Plummer.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grimston, Sir Robert
Morgan, William


Aitken, W. T.
Gunter, Ray
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Allason, James
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Neave, Airey


Awbery, Stan
Harman, William
Noble, Michael


Barter, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Beaney, Alan
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, Graham


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Paget, R. T.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hendry, Forbes
Partridge, E.


Bingham, R. M.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick


Bishop, F. P.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Peel, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Hiley, Joseph
Pentland, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Percival, Ian


Blyton, William
Hill, Mrs. Evelyn (Wythenshawe)
Peyton, John


Bossom, Clive
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Box, Donald
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brewis, John
Hocking, Philip N.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Brooman-White, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pott, Percivall


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Probert, Arthur


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bryan, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, James


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Peter


Butcher, Sir Herbert
James, David
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Jeger, George
Rees, Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Renton, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robertson, Sir David


Collard, Richard
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cooke, Robert
Kelley, Richard
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Cordie, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Roots, William


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Lagden, Godfrey
Russell, Ronald


Curran, Charles
Langford-Holt, J.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Currie, G. B. H.
Lawson, George
Sharples, Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leather, E. H. C.
Shepherd, William


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Maj. Sir Harry
Short, Edward


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Deedes, W. F.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Deer, George
Litchfield, Capt. John
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveys, Walter H.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Doughty, Charles
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


du Cann, Edward
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Duncan, Sir James
McAdden, Stephen
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
MacArthur, Ian
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Eden, John
McCann, John
Stodart, J. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Elliott, R. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Studholme, Sir Henry


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Symonds, J. B.


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Tapsell, Peter


Fletcher, Eric
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maitland, Cdr. Sir John
Temple, John M.


Gammans, Lady
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gardner, Edward
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Gibson-Watt, David
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Marlowe, Anthony
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Marshall, Douglas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Goodhew, Victor
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)



Gourlay, Harry
Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Green, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Grey, Charles
Monslow, Walter
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis




Wainwright, Edwin
Wilkins, W. A.
Woof, Robert


Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)



Watts, James
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Webster, David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Rees-Davies and


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wise, A. R.
Brigadier Clarke.


Whitelaw, William
Woodnutt, Mark

MAN-POWERED FLIGHT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Teeling: Two or three months ago I had the opportunity of asking the Minister of Civil Aviation whether in some way he could support the efforts now being made to do something about man-powered flying. As far as I remember, the answer was that he had considerable sympathy for the subject but he did not feel that this was the time to pay out Government money towards it. I am fully aware that there are considerable financial difficulties these days, but a great deal of money is being spent on subjects connected with defence and on the kind of thing that I want to speak about tonight.
For example, man-powered flying as we know it is being developed at the moment in other countries, such as Russia. We find that quite a lot is going on. They are secretive about it, but I believe that quite a lot is being done, mainly on the lines of flying with wings. In the United States the Rockefeller Foundation has helped considerably. There are two or three machines in the process of being tested, largely thanks to this Foundation. Efforts are also being made in France and, although I have no definite information about them, I believe that they are being helped considerably by the French Government. I will come back in a moment to what is being done in the private sphere in this country.
It is interesting to recall that at the time of Ivan the Terrible a poor man was sentenced to death in Russia because he decided to try to fly into the air. That great Russian potentate said that it was not natural that one should try to get off the earth. I do not know whether Khrushchev feels the same today, but I rather gather that he does not.
In trying to study this and all other flying problems we have concentrated more or less on fast flying. We have jet aircraft, and everything is being done for fast flying. Little is being done about a possible discovery of greater aids towards slow flying and the possibilities of easier and safer landing through slow

flying. If we were to study the problem of man powered flying, in which one would probably go no faster than about 30 m.p.h., we might well be able, so I am told by those who are studying the problem, to discover new means which would be a considerable help in the future in bringing down aircraft slowly and finding new material to help us in slow flying.
There is also a possible security advantage in that one would be most unlikely, flying oneself, with one's own wings or propellers, to go very much higher than 10 to 20 ft. That being so, I understand that one would be well below radar level. This could be immensely useful, offering possibilities of flying from submarines or elsewhere in such a way that radar could not detect us.
Private enterprise is doing all that it can to help. Indeed, private enterprise has been immensely helpful in the past, especially the newspapers. If we think back to the days of Bleriot we recall what was done by the late Lord Northcliffe, and the late Lord Rothermere, and later by the present Lord Rothermere. Hon. Members should look at a list of the prizes which the Daily Mail gave for flying in those days. In 1909 it offered £1,000 for the first Channel flight, which was won by Bleriot, and then another £1,000 for the first circular mile flown, won by Lord Brabazon. In 1910 it offered £10,000 for a London-to-Manchester flight, won by Paulhan, and in 1910, £1,000 for the fastest cross-country aggregate, again won by Paulhan. In 1911 there was another £10,000 for a flight round Britain, won by Baumont. In 1913 there was £1,000 for a water-plane flight round Britain and in 1919, £10,000 for a transatlantic flight, which was won by Alcock and Brown.
In 1930 the sum of £10,000 was given for the solo flight to Australia, won by Amy Johnson, and in 1959 there was a prize of £10,000 for the cross-Channel Bleriot anniversary race. That is what one newspaper has done, and the Daily Express and Lord Beaverbrook helped before the war. They gave considerable backing to a man who tried to fly with wings, but the muscular effort was evidently too much and he broke his arms on two occasions. Finally, the poor man was killed during the war. Backing has also been given to other endeavours of a


similar nature. The Times has given backing to such things as the Everest Expedition and the Antarctic Expedition. All these endeavours are helped privately.
So we come to this quite new problem—how we are likely to be able to fly personally. This has sufficiently interested a gentleman called Mr. Kremer, who has been good enough to give £5,000 as a prize to be won. In addition Air Commodore Weir has given another £1,000, and other money, on a much smaller scale, has been raised. This is all in order to win a prize. That has been passed on to the Royal Aeronautical Society and the Royal Aero Club.
The Royal Aeronautical Society has taken this matter sufficiently seriously to have formed a committee which has some extremely prominent names on it—men of the calibre of Mr. Shenstone, the B.E.A. chief engineer; Mr. H. B. Irving, president of the Low-Speed Aerodynamics Research Association; Mr. Robert Graham, Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, the first man to fly a helicopter in this country, who was director of Aircraft Equipment Research and Development, Ministry of Supply, and also Dr. Wilkie. They are four prominent people, who together with the Royal Aero Club have decided upon the rules for this flight for the Kremer competition.
As I have said, the prize is £5,000. I now come to the question of eligibility, and I like the eligibility terms very much. First, the entrant, designer and pilot must be citizens of the United Kingdom or the British Commonwealth and the aircraft must be designed and flown in the British Commonwealth. But the machine must be an heavier-than-air machine and the use of lighter-than-air gases is prohibited. The machine must be powered and controlled by the crew over the entire flight, and no devices for storing energy for lake-off or for use in flight are permitted. No part of the machine must be jettisoned during any part of the flight, including take-off, and the crew should be those persons in the machine during take-off, and flight, and there should be no limit set to their number. No member of the crew is permitted to leave the aircraft at any time during take-off or flight.
Furthermore, one handler or ground crew may assist in stabilising the machine at the wing-tip during take-off. All attempts, which must include the take-off run, must be made over approximately level ground and on a course to be approved by the Royal Aero Club. All attempts shall be in still air which is defined as a wind not exceeding a mean speed of approximately 10 knots, over the period of the flight. The Royal Aero Club is to act as observer and make final judgments.
I notice that nothing can be done without a minimum insurance of £20,000. Some people think that there is a good chance of people breaking their necks in this effort. Be that as it may, there is also considerable criticism that this competition may be far too severe for these first efforts. It is clear, however, that the Royal Aero Club and the Royal Aeronautical Society are taking the matter seriously.
There is no time tonight to go into the detail of the different types that are being thought out and worked out. There is a pedal system, which provides power of a kind derived from a bicycle. That would involve two or more people. There is the ordinary flap system and there is what is called the "flycycle".
This, I am interested to see, is being produced by Queen's University in Belfast. I was also interested to see, in an article in Reynolds News, that in the University they have reached the stage where they think that they will, by the end of July, given the money, have this machine ready. It is a 40 m.p.h. two-seater flycycle, and it is being developed under Mr. Nonweiler, senior lecturer in aeronautical engineering. The design is complete and has been subjected to intensive tests. Two local champion cyclists may man the machine. Mr. Nonweiler is impressed with the possibilities and thinks it can work up to speeds of about 30 m.p.h. There will be an 8½ ft. special propeller mounted in the tail to make it airborne. But ho needs money for all this development. He believes that as the design improves the flycycle will not be limited to special musclemen. In fact, there will be a commercial future and, if mass-produced, the cost could be under £300.
These things have now reached the stage where they should be developed,


but it all costs money. These are mostly for young people, for enthusiasts, who are not rich, to try to do. At present they can do little more than make back-garden efforts to try and produce them. A prototype of a really good pedal-type of man-powered aircraft would cost anything in the neighbourhood of £8,000 to £10,000.
At the moment, people think we must have, or should have, at least two people working such a machine together, but there is no reason why, according to what is going on in Russia, there should not be single-seaters as well. There is a wonderful future for us. I can well imagine, because of traffic, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I taking off in order to get here. We would have to get to only just over 10 ft. in the air, just above the buses. For City people, it would be a tremendous thing to be able to get to the City in the mornings and get back home afterwards. These are possibilities.
I can cast my memory back to those early days when aircraft first came over. I am old enough to remember the aircraft of 1910. How mad we thought it all, and how absurd the idea that aircraft could be of use in war time. But all these things have been studied and tried out and people are forming special committee for them.
There is also the medical aspect, which is not uninteresting. We are told that on muscle development, which we mainly see in Olympic Games, we have not to any great extent studied the immense possibilities that can be developed. I am told by doctors that it would not be so difficult. It might be that people might need some kind of steering element that would make it possible for us not only to have stronger arms but also a tremendous chest development.
Thirty miles per hour is just about as fast as one could go because there the question of oxygen comes into it as well. None of these things can be properly developed unless we can do the same thing as is being done both in Russia and France, and to a certain extent in the United States, with regard to efforts by the Government to help.
We do not ask very much of the Government. We ask only if it is possible for them to help out with money to help

towards the prototype. We think that that would bring us up to demanding about £12,000. The competition cannot take place unless people are able to provide the machines, but we have many airfields where we could make tests in wind tunnels and so on and where we might be allowed to use them.
That is what the Royal Aero Club would ask. From my constituency point of view, I should like some of the tests to be made at our own Shoreham Airport, so that we could then go gaily along Brighton Front at top speed going from meeting to meeting. No doubt every Member of Parliament would get extra votes by being seen at such a height!
This may be flippant, but on the serious side, there is no doubt that an effort is being made by a few private people to put up the money to make people more enthusiastic and to study in this country what is also being studied abroad. It may be that help will be given to ordinary flying developments from learning about these things. We are being very humble and not asking the Government very much, but we are asking for a little more enthusiasm and encouragement from them.

10.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) has chosen a fascinating subject to discuss. The idea of man-powered flight has engaged the attention of man throughout the centuries. My hon. Friend began with Ivan the Terrible, but this subject has a much longer history than that. I think that the credit for the first attempt by man to soar into the heavens is accorded by mythology to Icarus who, despite parental advice, sought to reach the sun with the power of waxed wings. Unfortunately, he descended without them because he got too near to his objective.
From earliest times, the whole project has enjoyed a certain amount of royal patronage. I am told that it was the Chinese Emperor Shun in the third millenium B.C. who succeeded in escaping from captivity with the aid of "the work clothes of a bird". More recently, in 852 B.C., the legendary tenth king of Britain, Bladud, was credited with a similar attempt.
This is something which has exercised the mind of man for a considerable time. The record shows a gap, apart from some activities by the Greeks of which we have no complete record, until 1507 when John Damian, a physician of the Scottish Court of James IV, experimented with artificial wings and broke a thigh bone in consequence. He seems to have shared the fate of some of the other gentlemen to whom my hon. Friend referred. Most of these experimenters seem to have benefited the medical profession rather than the cause of aviation.
The subject came seriously under consideration at the time of Leonardo da Vinci. Then, in the nineteenth century, we had a number of experiments of this kind by people who had taken a serious scientific interest in the matter. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Royal Aeronautical Society, to which the Government make a small contribution, has taken this matter seriously, and so set up a special man-powered aircraft group to consider methods of achieving man powered flight and to encourage and advise individuals and organisations who undertake such ventures on their own initiative.
The Royal Aeronautical Society moved first. After that a great stimulus to the project came when Mr. Henry Kremer generously offered a prize of £5,000 for the first successful controlled flight of a man-powered aircraft designed, built and flown within the British Commonwealth under conditions to be laid down by the Royal Aeronautical Society.
My hon. Friend has already referred to the regulations and conditions which have now been adopted. I note that in the blackest of type there is a note:
The Aircraft will be considered as Gliders and no Permit to Fly or Certificate of Airworthiness will be required. All intending entrants are strongly advised, during trials, to hold adequate insurance cover for Third Party Risks, and to take every precaution against damages to property.
However, in spite of these admonitions, several very serious projects have already been started and have received a certain amount of publicity. The first, described as a man-powered ornithopter, has been built by Mr. Emiel Hartman and is propelled by a wing flapping technique. This has not yet achieved free flight, but I am told that it attained a height of

50 feet when towed by a motor car. For the purposes of this test, the College of Aeronautics made available their airfield at Cranfield, and I have no doubt that facilities of that kind would be made available in other suitable cases.
The second project is being undertaken in his own time by Mr. Donald Perkins, a senior scientific officer employed at the Royal Aeronautical Establishment at Cardington, who has been receiving advice and guidance, but not financial support, from the Royal Aeronautical Society. It is based on the principle of a fixed inflatable wing craft which uses a bicycle propeller installation to drive the propeller. This craft has begun taxi-ing trials but has not yet reached the 20 miles an hour which Mr. Perkins estimates to be required to achieve free flight. I might say that hon. Members who are interested in these matters can find further details and photographs of these projects in the issue of Flight of 30th October, 1959.
I have no doubt that other enthusiasts and organisations are also taking an active interest in the concept. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend had to say about what is being done at Queen's University, Belfast. I think that a group of young Conservatives at Wood Green are also planning to enter for the prize. If they win, they have announced their laudable intention of devoting the proceeds to charity or to helping other aviation enthusiasts. I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend said about the difficulty of financing such projects before getting into the race at all and having an opportunity to win this prize.
Unfortunately, past experience and studies of this form of travel have shown that human power is inadequate in relation to the weight of a man-powered aircraft to sustain free flight for any reasonable period of time without the assistance of some form of propulsive power. What my hon. Friend had to say about getting to the House was extremely interesting, but I think even the more athletic hon. Members would be hard put to it to generate the necessary one horse-power or so to sustain flight for any length of time. I am inclined to think that the ratio of weight to power in some of us is not at all reassuring. We are concerned more


with the width of our tummies than the width of our chests. All this is doubly unfortunate because, on the other hand, the noise-power ratio would be extremely welcome to residents round London Airport.
I note what my hon. Friend had to say on the subject of flying from submarines, but I think that a little far in the future. And in the absence of any foreseeable military use, I think it difficult for the Government to undertake to give any direct financial support. For that reason, my right hon. Friend in answer to my hon. Friend did say in the House on 14th December that Government financial support would not be appropriate. It is hard to see that this has any future other than as an interesting sport and pastime or perhaps some private use for many years to come.
I might point out that it is possible that financial assistance can be obtained through the Royal Aeronautical Society for persons or organisations submitting promising projects. Such submissions must reach the Society by 31st October, 1960. Although the sum of £1,000 to which my hon. Friend referred has been generously donated by Air Commodore J. G. Weir of the Royal Aeronautical Society, I would not mislead the House by suggesting that there are very large

sums available at the moment. I think that the Society is hoping for further contributions because, although this is, as my hon. Friend said, a matter that some people take rather lightly, the concept of man-powered flight is not without considerable scientific interest. It has a bearing on the design of very light structures and involves a study of extremely sophisticated aeronautical problems.
Although I may not have been able to give my hon. Friend the satisfaction that he would have wished, I can assure him that my right hon. Friend and I are studying the matter with close attention and will await future developments with interest—particularly the possibility that some new design features of wide application may arise.

Mr. Teeling: Before my hon. Friend sits down, can he tell the House about the possibility of the use of wind tunnels?

Mr. Rippon: I indicated that in one case facilities were made available, and in appropriate cases I am sure that we would provide that sort of facility for tests.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.